Welcome to the Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest!

Concentrate doesn't trigger reactions, anyway.

There are quite a few monster reactions and one fighter reaction that are triggered by actions with the concentrate trait. There are also abilities that force a flat check to succeed at concentrate actions.

I am actually quite upset that we are getting more classes into the game, instead of building these new concepts on the existing classes. I thought that the whole point of the feat based classes was so the existing classes could fulfill more roles. Now we're just going to go back to adding a new class for every concept, meaning things they might share with existing classes are now reprinted as new feats, with different names, taking something that was supposed to make things more streamlined actually make them even more cumbersome.

With the Witch I personally was hoping for stronger familiar, more along the line of magical companions. Something like animated nonweapon-objects with familiar traits, so you could have your standard broomstick riding witch all the way up to Baba Yaga's house

I am actually quite upset that we are getting more classes into the game, instead of building these new concepts on the existing classes. I thought that the whole point of the feat based classes was so the existing classes could fulfill more roles. Now we're just going to go back to adding a new class for every concept, meaning things they might share with existing classes are now reprinted as new feats, with different names, taking something that was supposed to make things more streamlined actually make them even more cumbersome.

I think it's pretty safe to assume the new APG is also going to have a lot of expansions to the core classes. Of the 4 classes presented, I think only the Investigator could reasonably be considered able to fit an existing class, and I like the adjustments to the chassis they've made for that one. How would you make a Witch as we see here with only class feats on an existing class?

I would of like to see a lot of classes incorporated as Archetypes or prestige classes. Are we going to see ALL the classes we went through already? A lot of them dont feel like they should be a class of their own, i.e Investigator, Shifter, etc.

Wish they would had started with the most successful ones at least :/

Wish they would had started with the most successful ones at least :/

For some reason you're assuming they didn't.

Ectar wrote:

Concentrate doesn't trigger reactions, anyway.

There are quite a few monster reactions and one fighter reaction that are triggered by actions with the concentrate trait. There are also abilities that force a flat check to succeed at concentrate actions.

So, the abilities this has an effect on are:

Surely that seems far too niche to include as a core ability of the class. Really seems like it's only there because it's something PF1 witches could do, and not because PF2 witches would actually want to do it. I mean, in 98% of cases it doesn't matter whether you cackle or concentrate, so as an ability it's not really adding anything.

I mean, in 98% of cases it doesn't matter whether you cackle or concentrate, so as an ability it's not really adding anything.

So? The Druid's ability to speak Druidic is even less relevant than that, but no one seems bothered by that existing.

It's okay to have ribbon abilities.

Quote:

I mean, in 98% of cases it doesn't matter whether you cackle or concentrate, so as an ability it's not really adding anything.

So? The Druid's ability to speak Druidic is even less relevant than that, but no one seems bothered by that existing.

It's okay to have ribbon abilities.

Yeah, but druidic allows the druid to do something different. This, not so much.

Personally I would rather it be.

Keep the concentration trait, gain auditory and sonic traits. Have it be a reaction that can be used when you cast a non cantrip spell.

Cursory thoughts-

The Investigator- Without rattling any dice on them yet, I LOVE their thematic space. Three basic approaches are fun, and they make a neat sort of alternative to the rogue. Could they have just been a subset of Rogue rackets? Debatable, but since the PF1 Investigator was an unabashed kitbash of the Rogue and the Alchemist, I think some growing pains as it becomes its own thing are natural. It's certainly a good team player. I like it.

The Oracle- Hrnh. Putting aside how rough some of those curses are... shacking them to mysteries is a bit of a tooth-grinder. 'Cause it used to be, whatever curse you picked, you could sort of tailor it to your character concept- the direct linkage is an unwelcome development for me. While page space isn't free, I think having the curses directly bolted to the mysteries is a mistake. What if I like the idea of a Battle Oracle whose vision is clouded by illusory carnage, or whose hearing is hampered by the perpetual din of battle which grows louder as their connection to their mystery increases? What about a Fire Oracle whose own magic burns away their vitality? Or maybe a Life Oracle whose connection to life is inherently predatory, weakening them when they aren't actively preying upon other life? All of these are possible with what we've got right now if you just decouple the curses from the mysteries and make it more a la carte.

Oracles used to be kind of unpredictable- knowing what one would do was an open question until they started doing their thing. Knowing what curse an oracle labors under the second they show off a mystery power is kind of... cookie cutter.

The curse penalties also look pretty ugly at first blush, but until I actually roll one of these out I can't say for sure if the drawbacks outweigh the class benefits.

The Swashbuckler- I want to play one. I never wanted to play a PF1 Swashbuckler. These new version rollick and cavort their way through battle. Can't wait to give it a try. Actually getting points for style sounds like a hoot. Could arguably have been a modification of the Fighter or Rogue, but I think they work as a really nifty thing on their own.

The Witch- A bit surprised by the "pick a tradition" approach. As a sort of converse to my worries about oracle Curses and Mysteries being paired, I'd kind of like to see more of a chain approach to the hexes a Witch can pick up. Ah well. Just seems some patrons would have no business handing out some of the lessons, but I digress. Surprised the hair attack can't be finesse. Really like the basic overall approach, though.

I liked the old Oracle where you got to choose your curse. I hope that they so this in the final product

Haven't had a chance to play an Oracle yet, but chiming in with the 'Unchain the Curses from the Mysteries' team.

They were some of the most interesting things in PF1 *by themselves* and were the starting point for a character or two... the Mystery came *later*. By binding them together there's no way to do that

"Let's see, do I want to bleed out or be a berserker? Welp, I don't have much choice here."

Imagine, if you would, a healer that got more and more enraged as they were healing their team (because they keep getting hurt and the other side WON'T JUST STOP FIGHTING!)

I much prefer the curse as mystery dynamic to be honest.

It lets the curses be really specific, thematic, and related to an expected play pattern for the mystery. So that they COST something.

AC penalties for the combat oracle are a COST, not so much the flames curse. The curse should be all about theme and flavour, and I think linking them to mysteries helps that more than pick and mix.

I DO think the Curses are escalated too quickly maybe? The oracle has low spells for a spontaneous class, and should be able to use focus more than currently. Maybe add an intermediate step between minor and moderate curses, or make it take two uses to upgrade (both involve more tracking, but as it is the curse makes you only flexible and good at focus spells the first fight you use any focus spell, then you're basically 1 focus again, but with penalties, often harsh.)

I LOVE the ideas, but I think the exact way the revelation spell casting and curse progression works needs some tweaks.

Did anybody ever pick any curse that actually made you weaker in PF1, except the "I'm playing a Oracle/Rogue/Druid multiclass and I'm here to tell you about the fascinating story of my character" people, who were playing the wrong RPG to begin with?

Did anybody ever pick any curse that actually made you weaker in PF1

Yes.

My roommate played an Oracle Samurai with Clouded Vision that he acted out as full blindness for flavor. I have a dual cursed Haunted Deaf Oracle that can only hear the voices in his head that give him bad advice. There are plenty of folks that will take "wrong" options for the sake of the character.

And even then, that's not really the point, is it? None of that will be a problem in PF2 if the curses are balanced. I saw more than my fair share of Haunted and Tongues Oracles in PFS because they were seen as easy-mode-curses, but there's no reason those same options (if they return) couldn't be made harsher for the sake of balance.

Of course. It's just that allowing you to cherry-pick flaws pretty much always leads to sudden popularity of the least problematic ones.

Unlocking Curses from Mysteries means that many players will try to minimax. They'll either take "weak" curses, or ones that are patched by specific feats or spells. You can try to fix this by balancing the curses, but this is going to be really hard.

Locking Curses to Mysteries is a major change from 1e, and is restrictive and feels less fun.

It's a tough choice.

Doug M.

Personally, I want to see how the bonded mysteries/curses works in play.

Cursory thoughts-

…
Oracles used to be kind of unpredictable- knowing what one would do was an open question until they started doing their thing. Knowing what curse an oracle labors under the second they show off a mystery power is kind of... cookie cutter.

A player might know that. Would a player character necessarily know it?

I know that actual play feedback is mostly what the devs are interested in.
But I can say, just from a readthrough.. One thing I love about PF2 is it reins in a lot of stray rules and puts them all under similar systems that are understood by everyone.
The swashbuckler panache thing... It adds another set of rules to remember. It seems like it'd be better to just give them focus points and call it panache.
Looking forward to checking it out, tho!

Investigator feat, Just One More Thing. Priceless. :)

I know that actual play feedback is mostly what the devs are interested in.

But I can say, just from a readthrough.. One thing I love about PF2 is it reins in a lot of stray rules and puts them all under similar systems that are understood by everyone.
The swashbuckler panache thing... It adds another set of rules to remember. It seems like it'd be better to just give them focus points and call it panache.
Looking forward to checking it out, tho!

Definitely disagree here. Not everything needs to be focus points, they are specifically magic only right now and making panache focus-based would not let it do what it currently does. I think new mechanical design spaces that are not "a pool of X points per combat" are exciting for them to be exploring.

Unlocking Curses from Mysteries means that many players will try to minimax. They'll either take "weak" curses, or ones that are patched by specific feats or spells. You can try to fix this by balancing the curses, but this is going to be really hard.

Locking Curses to Mysteries is a major change from 1e, and is restrictive and feels less fun.

It's a tough choice.

When curses were independent of mysteries, they also were a mixed bag of good and bad stuff (both "always on") that moved more towards the good side as you gained levels.

The new curses are basically punishments for casting your focus spells.

Unlocking Curses from Mysteries means that many players will try to minimax. They'll either take "weak" curses, or ones that are patched by specific feats or spells. You can try to fix this by balancing the curses, but this is going to be really hard.

Locking Curses to Mysteries is a major change from 1e, and is restrictive and feels less fun.

It's a tough choice.

I’d rather they try the former; balance the curses with each other and keep them interesting. A big part of 2e is about rebalancing the system anyway. Seems like it keeps options open in the design space and lessens the restrictive nature of locking them to specific mysteries. I also think it would be better in the long run to patch curses that get too far out of line than to restrict variety and choice.

I'm not 100% against locking curses and mysteries, but like I said in an earlier post, I'd much rather see mysteries "gated" behind curses much like donations are to deities. They already have domains listed to each mystery (which I don't really like anyway). If you swap the list of available domains with a list of available mystery benefits/curses, you'd get the mix'n'match of the old system, reigned in a bit, and thematically a better fit.

Hell, the Witch lets you 'design' your patron; why can't Oracle 'design' their mystery? Limit the options with prerequisites even, but don't hard lock everything. PF2 has so much emphasis on customizability. It's what I enjoy most in there new system. I would hate to see one of 1e's better examples of customization become one of the worst.

the oracle seems like a class designed for people to read about in a novel and not one people would actually play or enjoy playing.

Or for min-maxing, assuming you can find 3 spells/level in the divine list that you want to have.

Grab the base benefits (like a full armor/martial weapon 8hp/level full caster, or 10 hp/level or better reflex saves), and just ignore the revelation spells and curses altogether.

The problem aspects of the class are easily shed in a side package you don't need to spend any resources on or care about at all. Just spend class feats on dedications or multiclassing, unless something is really appealing- ethereal sense for example sounds really thematic and interesting, but I'm not sure seeing into the ethereal plane is actually useful in PF2. Can you do anything there? Or do you need some other effect to take actions in the ethereal?

-----
The swashbuckler and investigator puzzle me. Rogue-fighter or Rogue-alchemist seem... fine?... maybe?, but redundant. Odd choices to eat up class space in the book.

Witch is potentially interesting, though cackle every round to sustain is super annoying, hexes are overly limited by the focus mechanic, and both the witch and the familiar are ridiculously vulnerable. And of course have to interact with the familiar rules, and I'd really rather not.

I think the Swashbuckler ends up standing out pretty well. I still feel like it's taking away design space from Rogues and Fighters, but it does something interesting.

A little frustrated with the Investigator. I love the class and I love some of the options it presents, but it really does kind of feel like a specialized rogue right now. I hope it gets a more interesting combat routine in the final version than budget sneak attack.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

If I am reading this correctly, the witch patron lessons change depending on the lessons that are learned. So it looks like you can have various lessons and thus various spell sources?

Only the initial Lesson determines the spell list. Subsequent Lessons gives spells and hexes (focus spells) I believe.

Thank you for this. I am not seeing that, unless that is what I get for trying to read on screen :)

If oracles are going to have less spells, and have a cost for using their focus spells, they should be able to use focus CONSIDERABLY more than other people.

I, personally, think this means they should be able to stall their curse progression several times, put it on a 10 minute timer, in battle, the curse still goes up, but out, other focus spells dont murder the oracles utility.

The oracle focus spells also need to be more considerable if the final cost is ending the adventuring day. An extra cast is almost never worth going down, and you shouldnt have class features you not only wont use, but arent supposed to use.

I'm just going to go on record saying that the Oracle and Witch feel backwards to me here.

The very concept of a mystery, and it's corresponding revelations in 1E, seem almost tailor made for the mechanics of the Witch's lessons in this play test. The oracle is tied to unknowable power and learns about it over time.

Conversely, the witch is supposed to be making bargains for knowledge and power -- which inherently suggests a price associated with that knowledge.

I kind of wish Oracles could pick their 'revelations,' maybe gaining an associated drawback with each, while Witches got the "use hex focus powers for a price" with a chain of hexes coming from a specific kind of patron.

So, is there any word if this is legal for Pathfinder Society?

Not that I have seen, William Ronald.

So, is there any word if this is legal for Pathfinder Society?

Hi! After carefully weighing a variety of factors (such as the burden on GMs still grappling with a new set of rules), the Organized Play team has decided that it's not in the best interest of the campaign to have playtest characters participating in official Pathfinder Society games at this time.

If you're interested in earning Pathfinder Society credit for participating in the playtest, I highly recommend playing Fall of Plaguestone and downloading the free sanctioning document for it on the adventure's product page. You can play a playtest character through the adventure and then apply the credit to a Pathfinder Society character of your choice when you're done.

William Ronald wrote:

So, is there any word if this is legal for Pathfinder Society?

Hi! After carefully weighing a variety of factors (such as the burden on GMs still grappling with a new set of rules), the Organized Play team has decided that it's not in the best interest of the campaign to have playtest characters participating in official Pathfinder Society games at this time.

If you're interested in earning Pathfinder Society credit for participating in the playtest, I highly recommend playing Fall of Plaguestone and downloading the free sanctioning document for it on the adventure's product page. You can play a playtest character through the adventure and then apply the credit to a Pathfinder Society character of your choice when you're done.

Makes sense. Incentivizing playtesting with Chronicles would skew the data to only tier 1-2!

Hi! After carefully weighing a variety of factors (such as the burden on GMs still grappling with a new set of rules), the Organized Play team has decided that it's not in the best interest of the campaign to have playtest characters participating in official Pathfinder Society games at this time.

If you're interested in earning Pathfinder Society credit for participating in the playtest, I highly recommend playing Fall of Plaguestone and downloading the free sanctioning document for it on the adventure's product page. You can play a playtest character through the adventure and then apply the credit to a Pathfinder Society character of your choice when you're done.

Awesome! Thank you for letting us know officially and for making what I think is definitely the right call for Society right now.

May those testing discover important feedback that improves the game. Good luck!

I agree with the person saying shield block should be an option and not automatic. I would like to see a parry maybe as the auto instead or a choice between a parry and shield block.

I agree with the person saying shield block should be an option and not automatic. I would like to see a parry maybe as the auto instead or a choice between a parry and shield block.

Shield block feels like a kind of quarter- or half-option added to a class as such a minor boost that I actually struggle to think of what can be given in lieu of the option. The feature almost reads like "shield proficiency...but for real".

I just don't envision my swashbuckler using a buckler. I'm fine with some people's swashbuckler using a buckler so I'm OK with it being an option I just don't want the (what would be) wasted option for mine.

I just don't envision my swashbuckler using a buckler. I'm fine with some people's swashbuckler using a buckler so I'm OK with it being an option I just don't want the (what would be) wasted option for mine.

So you want to play a Swash?

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I just don't envision my swashbuckler using a buckler. I'm fine with some people's swashbuckler using a buckler so I'm OK with it being an option I just don't want the (what would be) wasted option for mine.

So you want to play a Swash?

I approve of this message.

Make sure to buckle up kids.

{. . .} Witch is potentially interesting, though cackle every round to sustain is super annoying {. . .}

My thoughts as well. Even in Pathfinder 1st Edition, upon reading the Cackle Hex, I very quickly came to the conclusion that use of this Hex would cause a Witch that is part of a party and NOT the boss to end up sharing the fate of Sir Robin's Minstrels.

Voss wrote:

{. . .} Witch is potentially interesting, though cackle every round to sustain is super annoying {. . .}

My thoughts as well. Even in Pathfinder 1st Edition, upon reading the Cackle Hex, I very quickly came to the conclusion that use of this Hex would cause a Witch that is part of a party and NOT the boss to end up sharing the fate of Sir Robin's Minstrels.

To be fair, Cackle will only be used 1) if the Witch is themed to be a maniacal crazy person, or 2) your situation says 'don't use concentration traited actions if you can help it' because otherwise 'Sustain a Spell' is just as fine and without the annoying sounds. Now if Cackle maintained MULTIPLE sustain spells, then it'd be a different thing, but it doesn't, so *shrug*

I am actually quite upset that we are getting more classes into the game, instead of building these new concepts on the existing classes. I thought that the whole point of the feat based classes was so the existing classes could fulfill more roles. Now we're just going to go back to adding a new class for every concept, meaning things they might share with existing classes are now reprinted as new feats, with different names, taking something that was supposed to make things more streamlined actually make them even more cumbersome.

I think that the oracle, swashbuckler, and witch are different enough to warrant new classes. But the investigator could easily be done as a rogue racket with investigator feats added to the rogue feats, and studied strike a special action available to the racket that lets them get sneak attack damage.

To be fair, Cackle will only be used 1) if the Witch is themed to be a maniacal crazy person, or 2) your situation says 'don't use concentration traited actions if you can help it' because otherwise 'Sustain a Spell' is just as fine and without the annoying sounds. Now if Cackle maintained MULTIPLE sustain spells, then it'd be a different thing, but it doesn't, so *shrug*

Huh I totally misread that last night. I thought it did sustain all your hex/curses/focus spell stuff... thats a bummer that it doesn't.

That not doing it.. leads me to wonder a bit why the "no auditory" upgrade is lv 10/12 and the "sustain as a reaction" is 16.
Seems like the audio should be considerably lower and the reactionary be around 10 or 12.

William Ronald wrote:

So, is there any word if this is legal for Pathfinder Society?

Hi! After carefully weighing a variety of factors (such as the burden on GMs still grappling with a new set of rules), the Organized Play team has decided that it's not in the best interest of the campaign to have playtest characters participating in official Pathfinder Society games at this time.

If you're interested in earning Pathfinder Society credit for participating in the playtest, I highly recommend playing Fall of Plaguestone and downloading the free sanctioning document for it on the adventure's product page. You can play a playtest character through the adventure and then apply the credit to a Pathfinder Society character of your choice when you're done. [/QUOTE}

First, thank you for a quick response.

I know a few GMs who are still adjusting to the rules. I will talk to my gaming group today and see what we would like to do.

The word "cackle" brings to mind an evil and ugly old hag, with a really nasty sounding laugh, yet the Playtest document says "As a witch, you can extend your spells through simple laughter, whether malevolent or joyous."

The description of "cackle" says

"Requirements You have at least one spell active that has a sustained duration and affects ones or more targets, and you are not fatigued.
----------------------------------------
You gain the effects of Sustaining a Spell with one or more targets of that spell, as long as the targets can hear you Cackle. As when Sustaining a Spell, Cackling for more than 10 minutes (100 rounds) ends the spell and makes you fatigued unless the spell lists a different maximum duration. If your Cackle is disrupted, the spell immediately ends."

If cackle applies to only one spell (and I agree that the description below the line above certainly seems to say that) then what is the point of "at least one spell active" in the requirements?

I believe that's just to avoid confusion - if it said "one spell active" someone might interpret that to mean "ONLY one spell".

Honestly that requirement is why I assuemd it was as many spells as you wanted until this thread.

I v ery much though that that multi sustain with one action was one of the lynchpin concepts for a witch.
Which made sense to me-because half of the stuff are curse like things.

Generally speaking made sense to me that one of their fluff aspects is the w hole "curse everything for better or for worse" The focus spells and several of various actual spell list stuff.

I think it should probably be allowed to sustain multiple things with one action. It would be a great niche

But possibly too strong.