42nfl19's page

77 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hex Arcana: A hexcrafter gains access to the following magus arcana, or may select any witch hex in place of a magus arcana.

Your magus unlocks access to arcanas at level 3. Therefore at level 3 you can pick a hex instead of an arcana. Hex Magus just gives you a Hex instead of spell recall. By your logic, you can only get a hex at levels 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 with level 3 being a normal magus arcana instead of being able to get a hex at levels 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. This does not even include the Extra Arcana feat to get even more hexes.


Can I get a paizo dev or someone link me to a place where a dev has already answered this question?

The basic premise is, at what level does a hexcrafter magus gain access to hexes? It is of my opinion that you get hexes at level 3 because Hex Arcana says you "may select any witch hex in place of a magus arcana". Hex Magus just allows you to get another "free" hex for the cost of Spell Recall. Hex Magus replaces spell recall. While Hex Arcana modifies/elevates the Magus' Arcanas (Hex Arcana does not even mention modifying, altering, or replacing of features like most archetypes do). They are two "separate" features. Others have stated that you only get the hexes starting at level 4 only. Hex Magus is mentioned first so it's ruling is that it has precedence over Hex Arcana? IDK

Any dev clarification would be very appreciated. I have read guides and user posts that have mentioned both views.


Necrotifice wrote:

So, I'm GMing that non-test AP game. I'm picking out treasure for rewards in this dungeon as per Table 11-1 (page 347 of Rulebook, for the curious). And I notice something about most of the Trinkets - these require skill proficiencies and sometimes even feats.

Adding feat or skill requirements to items functionally narrows the list of magic items a player can use. I could see an argument for this on certain items, but for trinkets and consumables it just feels like too much balancing against the items.

Items already have several balancing factors - use of action economy and scarcity. Many players will already not use consumables because they want to "bank" them for when they need the most. I don't think consumables need to be made worse than those two factors.

Just as an aside, what non-test AP game are you referring to?


shroudb wrote:

Due to the much limited amount of AoO in the system, I like that there are also less ways to mitigate them.

It now is a feature of specific classes and monsters rather than something that's always on and abudant.

So it is better if it's treated like that.

This is just a feeling but as I play against enemies at higher levels in the playtest module, I feel like they get more and more AOOs compared to lower levels.


If it is on purpose,that's fine but it sucks. If it was an oversight, that is bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a side note, this is just like what happened to the Alchemist with Tricky Tinker. 1.2 brought the end of Signature Skills. Therefor the Alchemist no longer needed Tricky Tinker. "Deception and Thievery become signature skills for you." HOWEVER, it also had the nice benefit of allowing the Alchemist to use alchemist tools or a repair kit INSTEAD of thievery tools. I hope this gets brought back in the final version.Sure it might not have been a strong option at level 8 but it was an option non the less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After perusing some threads online, I just realized that Lay on Hands, while recently buffed, also got nerfed at the same time.I mean so did Paladin Reactions, they have set ranges now, but that is another topic. So for background information, Somatic action was changed so that it no longer requires a free hand to cast spells/powers. That is a good thing. Now Clerics/Paladins can heal allies while there hands are busy with weapons or shields. Lay on Hands was also buffed to have d6s instead of d4s. That is also good. Hospice Knight only increased healing from d4s to d6s. Now undead get hurt by d6s also. For the most part, Warded Touch is no longer needed. HOWEVER, Warded Touch had another benefit that was not added or replicated. The removal of the manipulate trait from the somatic portion of Lay on Hands. Before, you could attack undead, or evil creatures with Vengeful Oath, safely. Now you are super at risk for attacks of opportunities and losing your Lay on Hands.The Paladin already has limited resources to cast it. Now he can waste them also. At least with heal/channel you can cast it at range safely at the enemy. But Lay on Hands as I recall has no range option. Sure the Paladin is tanky and might be able to dodge the hit, but at higher levels, it is almost certain that the enemy will comfortably be able to exceed the damage threshold needed to waste the spell. To "safely" "smite" the undead you need to make sure you raise shield action BEFORE you attempt the give them the good touch. You can no longer safely heal allies next to enemies either. Lay on Hands seems worse now. I rather they keep the Warded Touch feat just so I can get rid of the manipulate trait. I can't even touch myself safely to heal in battle.


GM OfAnything wrote:

Yes, they should add the language to make it more clear that you only choose one at first level. It is also obvious from the ability descriptions and formatting that a single choice at level 1 is the intent.

Are you still confused or are you trying to prevent confusion in the final product?

I am trying to prevent confusion in the final product AND the current testing. How can we rightly test the Ranger with these changes if the wording is odd? Disambiguity can cause players and GMs problems in the future. Also I am slightly confused. It would not even seem that overpowered if you were to have all three.


GM OfAnything wrote:
Quote:
Page 114—Add hunter’s edge to the class table at 1st level.

You choose your edge at first level.

As for the Stalker build, that is definitely geared toward a more urban/investigation campaign.

Yes it says to add Hunter's Edge. But the wording within Hunter's Edge and in other places can cause confusion. The Paladin had Causes and Reactions added but they specifically call out for you to choose one. The Rogue's Technique was added to the class table but within the class feature it specifically tells you to choose one.

So the question still stands.
1) Do you get all 3?
2) Do you choose which one on Hunt Target you use?
3) Do you choose which one on build start?

That is why a dev response would be so much clear. I hope they change the wording in the final release. For the "sub classes" of druid, rogue, and now paladin, it specifically tells you to pick one. And they even recently changed up the Bard to clarify any confusion among the builds/muses.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Update 1.6 Ranger Section Introduction wrote:
This update introduces hunter’s edge and masterful hunter as expansions to this base version, with the “flurry” option within hunter’s edge representing a build based on the original version of Hunt Target.
Based on this part I think Hunter's Edge is supposed to be like Rogue's Technique and Paladin's Cause, a subclass choice made at level 1. That said, it could definitely be clearer.

The clarification of build is more clearer in the Rogue and Paladin. With the new "subclass" there are class feats the require a specific build choice. There are non that I could see for the Ranger. Non call for Flurry and they did not add more for Precision and Stalker.

In terms of power, it would be Flurry, Precision, and Stalker. I mean I find it highly unlikely that someone would go for a Stalker build. What would make more sense to me is that situationaly, you would want to use the additional benefits of Stalker, like in exploration mode. I mean overall Precision sucks scaling wise. As I mentioned before, it says additional benefits, plural. Having it be a single build choice sucks. Pick when ever you use Hunt Target would be good, and having all three is the cherry on top. As I said, as for how builds go, you really can't "build" anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Copied and pasted from the Shining Lights and Dark Stars blog. I hope a Dev or anyone else can clarify on this.

This might sound dumb but can anyone clarify the Ranger's new Hunter's Edge? Do you pick one at the start of a build? Do you pick one every time you activate Hunt Target? Or do you have access to all 3? It does not implicitly tell you to pick one. Even it has a line that says "You have trained for countless hours to become a more skilled hunter and tracker, gaining additional benefits when you Hunt a Target.) Benefit(s)...plural. Masterful Hunter,"You also gain an additional benefit depending on your hunter’s edge", implies that there was an individual choice from before.

The Rogue's Rogue's Technique specifically states " You gain one of the following techniques of your choice."

The Paladin's Righteous Form is chosen at the start and again later if you get a feat. "Once you have chosen the ally’s form, it cannot be changed"

Can anyone clarify? It's not like there are any class feats that require a specific build choice for the Ranger unlike The Paladin and Rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This might sound dumb but can anyone clarify the Ranger's new Hunter's Edge? Do you pick one at the start of a build? Do you pick one every time you activate Hunt Target? Or do you have access to all 3? It does not implicitly tell you to pick one. Even it has a line that says "You have trained for countless hours to become a more skilled hunter and tracker, gaining additional benefits when you Hunt a Target.) Benefit(s)...plural. Masterful Hunter,"You also gain an additional benefit depending on your hunter’s edge", implies that there was an individual choice from before.

The Rogue's Rogue's Technique specifically states " You gain one of the following techniques of your choice."

The Paladin's Righteous Form is chosen at the start and again later if you get a feat. "Once you have chosen the ally’s form, it cannot be changed"

Can anyone clarify? It's not like there are any class feats that require a specific build choice for the Ranger unlike The Paladin and Rogue.


So as I mentioned before, Half-elf heritage with the way it is written means that the Half-elf looses access to a method to gain 5ft of speed meaning that it is hard/difficult to get to the needed 40ft of speed to get the new level 9 elf feat. They also loose an easy access to the elf language without having to spend a feat or have more int? So overall:

5ft Speed increase: Lose a method to gain 5ft speed thus it is hard to reach 40ft speed that you could before
Elven language: Have to now spend another feat or have increased int to get
Trained in Diplomacy:You lose out on this "free" training. Have to spend a another method to gain it like a skill point.
Low-light:Earn it with the Heritage

Half-orc heritage is similar also where we lose access to certain things.

The devs have mentioned this is just a start but I hope they don't forget about it.


graystone wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:

Removed some posts and replies:

The term "half-breed" has some pretty negative real world connotations, so please find another way to talk about half-elves and half-orcs, etc.
I understand but Paizo's own PRD uses the term to refer to half-orcs. Maybe thats where folks got it from? I guess maybe go with half-blood then?

It's a term also used MULTIPLE times in the inner sea races book to refer to 1/2 orcs so I'm unsurprised people would use Paizo's own words to refer to them that way. That book was printed just 3 years ago so it's not like it happened a long time ago...

PS: Bastards of Golarion also uses the term 4-5 times to refer to partial human's. It also comes up 5 times in the official online resource, the archives of nethys. [NPC codex x2, blood of shadows x2 [March 2016], ARG]. So in a quick look, we have maybe a dozen or 2 instances of Pathfinder's continued use of it.

I mean isn't the term suppose to bring out negative connotations lore wise? Elves see Half-elves in disdain and while Humans I think are more accepting of them they still see them was strange. If anything why not go the full hog and make the Half-elf/orc a heritage that any race can apply. Now you can be a Halfling Half-elf. A Quarter-elf?


Rysky wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:

So this has been probably been mentioned before but is it intended that a half-elf won't be able to access the new Elf Step Ancestry feat(lvl 9)? For an elf to get it they would need the Fleet general feat and the Nimble ancestry feat. 30+5+5=40. The old Half-elf ancestry feat could get it by getting the Half-elf feat, Nimble feat, and Fleet feat. 25+5+5+5=40. Now the new Half-elf has no dreams of getting it. 25+5+5=35. Out of all the feats, this is one of the few that does not require a previous feat per say but a stat requirement that can only be reached by certain feats. Maybe there is an item that can boost your speed but I feel sad for Half-elfs that want to go fast.

Is this an intended balance from Paizo or an oversight? Would be interesting to know. I rather be told it was a "nerf" then stay up wondering if this was an error.

Half-orc got access to five new feats. Half-elf got access to six, but one of them is hard to access (it's class-locked for now).

The feat also doesn't make you go fast. It's just letting you five-foot-step twice with one action. I don't really know why folks would want to take it at all, given the rarity of needing to take a five-foot-step in the system, compounded by the rarity of needing to immediately take a second one.

I can see it being used a bunch against Large creatures with Reactions.

It also helps you safely do "hit and run" tactics, bobbing and weaving in and out of danger. Step in, Smack, Step out without risk of attacks of opportunities.


shroudb wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:

So this has been probably been mentioned before but is it intended that a half-elf won't be able to access the new Elf Step Ancestry feat(lvl 9)? For an elf to get it they would need the Fleet general feat and the Nimble ancestry feat. 30+5+5=40. The old Half-elf ancestry feat could get it by getting the Half-elf feat, Nimble feat, and Fleet feat. 25+5+5+5=40. Now the new Half-elf has no dreams of getting it. 25+5+5=35. Out of all the feats, this is one of the few that does not require a previous feat per say but a stat requirement that can only be reached by certain feats. Maybe there is an item that can boost your speed but I feel sad for Half-elfs that want to go fast.

Is this an intended balance from Paizo or an oversight? Would be interesting to know. I rather be told it was a "nerf" then stay up wondering if this was an error.

you can get additional speed from class (and subsequently multiclass), like from monk and barbarian from the top of my head.

That is a lot of work to get to 40 speed where you did not have that before. Now making a fast ranger or even rogue is a crapshoot unless I sacrifice things to get into monk or whatever.


So this has been probably been mentioned before but is it intended that a half-elf won't be able to access the new Elf Step Ancestry feat(lvl 9)? For an elf to get it they would need the Fleet general feat and the Nimble ancestry feat. 30+5+5=40. The old Half-elf ancestry feat could get it by getting the Half-elf feat, Nimble feat, and Fleet feat. 25+5+5+5=40. Now the new Half-elf has no dreams of getting it. 25+5+5=35. Out of all the feats, this is one of the few that does not require a previous feat per say but a stat requirement that can only be reached by certain feats. Maybe there is an item that can boost your speed but I feel sad for Half-elfs that want to go fast.

Is this an intended balance from Paizo or an oversight? Would be interesting to know. I rather be told it was a "nerf" then stay up wondering if this was an error.


I would like to say congrats AON for being "official". I always loved to use your site to theory craft characters with what I think is a robust search engine. Do you want to look for all feats that have somethings to do with the keyword finesse? Boom you got it all. No offense to Paizo but the only time I have ever used the official PFSRD was when it happened to be the first link on google, lol. I know you mentioned this before but are you still working on pre-errata/FAQ versions of things? Some people like to have a history of changes, others like the old versions of things also. Other than that, congrats again on the big up!


42nfl19 wrote:
Not sure how this will play out. Before in PF1 you could multiclass and take an archetype at the same time. There are even some builds where you level dip in a class with an archetype/s and have your core class with its own archetype/s. Now it looks like you can't do both. With the way dedication works, you would need to be at level 12. Multiclass feats at 2,4, and 6 and Archetypes at 8, 10, and 12 at minimum unless I am mistaking something. This route would lock you out of many class feats. I know this is a rare build but I feel like PF1 does it better. Again, in PF1 multiclassing really hurt spell casters and their progression but there were ways to fight that. i.e. Magical Knack. Some Prestige classes also helped out the loss of progression. Overall this feels reminiscent of the Variant Multiclassing and I don't think many people used it. I mean the problems of multiclassing I think brought in the rise of Hybrid classes. Merge classes people would like to use together and give them the tools they need to succeed. Like the Magus, Slayer, Hunter, Skald, etc, etc. There are even archetypes that borrow features from other classes to their class. Do you like guns? I can name a few classes with archetypes that let them have a taste of guns.

@Mark, so what is the main difference between archetype feats and multiclass feats? In my mind they are chained feats that you take at even levels instead of your normal class feats. They are mechanically the same. Take this intro feat then its followup feats instead of class feats to get cool "side grades". As mentioned before, you could possible take multiple classes AND archetypes at the same time in PF1. Now you can only do one at a time, minimum 6 levels. Is this intended? That means with 20 levels, you could only get a possible mix of 4 unique Multiclasses/Archetypes. Why even call them Archetype feats and Multiclass feats? Might as well call them a unifying name due to the Dedication clause. UNLESS there is a difference between archetype dedication and multiclass dedication? Are archetypes and multiclass feats even equal in power/usability compared to each other and the default class feats?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure how this will play out. Before in PF1 you could multiclass and take an archetype at the same time. There are even some builds where you level dip in a class with an archetype/s and have your core class with its own archetype/s. Now it looks like you can't do both. With the way dedication works, you would need to be at level 12. Multiclass feats at 2,4, and 6 and Archetypes at 8, 10, and 12 at minimum unless I am mistaking something. This route would lock you out of many class feats. I know this is a rare build but I feel like PF1 does it better. Again, in PF1 multiclassing really hurt spell casters and their progression but there were ways to fight that. i.e. Magical Knack. Some Prestige classes also helped out the loss of progression. Overall this feels reminiscent of the Variant Multiclassing and I don't think many people used it. I mean the problems of multiclassing I think brought in the rise of Hybrid classes. Merge classes people would like to use together and give them the tools they need to succeed. Like the Magus, Slayer, Hunter, Skald, etc, etc. There are even archetypes that borrow features from other classes to their class. Do you like guns? I can name a few classes with archetypes that let them have a taste of guns.


Can the druid get mountable companions or enable companions to be mountable?

Also is there any reason why the Wild Order Druid can't be based on Dex? Sometimes I envision a wild man just darting quickly in the forest being agile with hit and run tactics. It kind of sucks that it is Str only. It would be cool if it was "Str or Dex, which ever is higher".


Will this system also determine what spells/items are available to a town? In PF1, there was a rule system basically on size which determines what level or price limit on spells or items they could feasible sell. A small town? Sure they might have some cure light stuff. Miracle spell? Nah mate, not even if you search the next 10 towns will you find it. A huge kingdom supporting over a million people? Maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Mark, for the Katana and Longsword example, will it only say Common and Uncommon? Or will it also say Common(some region), Uncommon(another region), or even for spells Uncommon(some race). IDK the best way to do it but in my mind it could be Common(an inclusive category) or Uncommon and above(exclusive category). For example, this longsword is Common in all places that is the Inner Sea. Or this katana is Uncommon in all areas EXCEPT Eastern regions. Or an Uncommon Spell, this spell is uncommon to all people except this Kobold race. If you were to go this route, what is a better solution? Inclusion or exclusion? This might be in the old language of DR back in the day. Wait does this mean they are immune/resistive to that damage type or only that damage type can hurt them fully otherwise?


So rocks fall, players die. i.e. The GMs way to clear the slate.

"Um, actually my barbarian took the rock catching feat..." "Still raging." "Raaaarhh"

Rocks Fall


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, you didn't say this but I've seen a few posts that did, so I'll respond here: Rangers don't have anything built in that involves making snares (the only single mention of snares in a built in talent was that I added that snares can also trigger nature's edge, the ability they already had that let them treat enemies as flat-footed in areas of natural difficult terrain). If you like snares and want to be able to make them in a single action for no gp cost at will (the DC is lower if you do it for no gp cost), then you can go for it! Otherwise, you might focus more on animals and monster knowledge (like I did with my ranger), or boosting allies, or other options.

Oh! I misunderstood then. So I can set snares even w/o being a ranger, good to know - and there's a feat letting me do it in a single action at no cost? Holy cows.

But then... is what's left enough to keep the ranger competitive? I mean I see many people didn't like snares anyways, but... seems a little underwhelming perhaps?

If you ignore snares, you're still looking at a character with Hunt Target, tied for best mastery progression for weapons other than fighters, evasion on par with rogue; and then potentially Animal Companion stuff, monster lore feats, team buff feats, special Perception/Stealth/Survival related options either just for them or shared only with rogues, and more.

My ranger was doing steady consistent damage throughout my playtests, was consistently best at initiative due to being excellent at several major initiative values, and was generally pretty safe too, except the one time I did go down and the shoggoths kept constricting me over and over again instead of attacking the other party members (I still survived that barely because I had Diehard, but it was a very near thing).

If you want to be a trap/snare connoisseur, will you be able to level/upgrade them to be useful in a fight in combat mode? As of right now in low level, they seem to be only useful during exploration mode. I envision a point where you can become a master battle field controller. You are throwing out premade traps/snares mid-combat, mid-chase like a frisbee and when they land they deploy themselves. You lock down areas and escape routes and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
Mark, how modular will the Ranger be? Will class feats/archetypes allow you to replicate the Slayer or Hunter? I feel like with all these more modular classes, we are going to end up losing all the cool hybrid classes like the Magus(Fighter/Wizard kind of), Slayer(Ranger/Rogue), Ninja(Rogue/Monk kind of), etc.
I feel like you can sort of already do the slayer in many ways, given that Hunt Target is based off slayer's Studied Target. Hunter I think would be very easy to do with an archetype I expect we'll see in the Core Rulebook, assuming the playtest doesn't change things of course!
Is there much playtest support for a single-shot sharpshooter archery style? Maybe Deadly Aim or something similar, looking at the new Power Attack, to make one highly-focused and damaging shot per a turn viable?
Weirdly enough, you could do that with some of the ranger's crossbow feats, substantially buffing your crossbow damage while turning all your movement into free chances to reload so that you can keep mobile or duck in and out of corners making an enormous shot basically as heavy as a greatsword. In that case, Studied Target is mostly to remove those range increment penalties, making it more important for more open areas, whereas your advantage in windy dungeons is that you are rarely even visible to the enemies off-turn.

Does that mean you can make 2 ranged combat styles with the Ranger? i.e. "Machine gun build" where you use a bow to just spam the enemy with as many arrows as possible? Or a "Sniper build" where it focuses on the "one shot one kill" mentality? Before in PF1 there was almost no reason to get a crossbow expect as an easy backup ranged weapon for some melee classes. If there's gonna be a good incentive for cross bow I will be really excited!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, how modular will the Ranger be? Will class feats/archetypes allow you to replicate the Slayer or Hunter? I feel like with all these more modular classes, we are going to end up losing all the cool hybrid classes like the Magus(Fighter/Wizard kind of), Slayer(Ranger/Rogue), Ninja(Rogue/Monk kind of), etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading about how potions has to use RP iffs me a bit. I always liked the dichotomy between Potions and Scrolls(and to an extent wands). Potions were neat that anyone could drink them. Do you have s#$& UMD or are not magically inclined? Chug thus drink and you can breath underwater. Scrolls were a cheaper alternative I think and were good for users that had good UMD or had the spells on hand to cast. Are you magically illiterate? Do you have a working throat? CHUG CHUG CHUG now you can FLY FLY FLY.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So one of my big "issues" with this new RP system is that it hampers/removes the most cost effective way of healing between combat/down time or what is now called exploration mode. Before, after you get your first deposit of dosh the best cost effective healing item is Wand of CLW. You don't even need higher level wands. It has enough charges to top you off between fights. Do you have at least one person that can cast CLW? Boom don't even need UMD. Every party member, if they had extra dosh, could get their own and just let the party healer use it on them. Then the party healer could better use their spell slots for more utility spells, buff spells, etc.

Was this method too "Overpowered"? I feel like it was not that OP. It freed up spell slots and allowed more spells to be used. It also meant that you can stay out in the field longer and not have to stop. Can any DEVS or Mark comment on this? Was this tactic something you wanted to remove in the new system or can you replicate this healing method?

Also can other people comment on this? Was this method/tactic ok or too OP?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

I like this type of archetype, because it expresses specializing in a an aspect of that class (similar to a wizard selecting a school). Two examples that come to mind are the Armor Master and Polearm Master fighter archetypes from Pathfinder 1. In these, the fighter skips some training in weapons to focus on defense, or skips some training in weapon variety to focus on a type of weapon.

The old system allowed two fighters to be very different, almost as different as a fighter and a ranger, even at first level. The new system sounds like all fighters will have the same generic base abilities and then just advance separately. This doesn't seem much different than feat trees, like the Pathfinder 1 Critical Focus tree, Blindfight tree, or Feint tree.

There is still design space for archetypes that morph something specific in a class. However, putting out several of them for each class would take a pretty big footprint in the playtest book, and the thing we have less testing on is these types of archetypes anyone can take.

So will there be more archetypes that are class specific? Cause as of right now, I am not into the new archetype system. As of right now, they just add additional themed options to the core base class you are building as Kwik mentioned. There are archetypes that alter/change a Paladins Smite Evil, a Cleric's Channel, or a Magus' spell strike/spell combat that make them similar but totally different. Paladin's that smite evil with a gun only or against different creature types etc. Now it seems like you will get a base class but it can optionally do themed stuff.

I think my worry also stems from the fact that certain class features were "removed" but you have to "re-add" them. Like the recent Monk reveal. The unchained monk had access to monk weapons and stunning fist at level 1. Now the new monk has to focus on one or the other. Sure a monk in PF1 could focus on one facet of his features over the other but at least we had access to both. It never feels good to have less psychologically, especially when you use to have more before. I could be wrong. Now if you were to take an archetype for a monk, level 1 you would have to decide if you wanted your new themed thing vs your "normal" monk stuff. This is similar to how it was in PF1 where it replaced Monk Features but I don't know.

I almost feel like these blanket archetypes that anyone can take should be renamed. In my mind they aren't really archetypes but themed asset packages that classes can optionally choose from. But this sentiment can just be only me.


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

I don't like the concept of being unable to make an attempt at something even if the odds are terrible. Would it be unbalanced to apply a penalty for lacking sufficient training?

Maybe -10 per level of training you are behind so an untrained character can attempt a trained only task but takes a -10 penalty or an expert only task at -20 etc. the odds of critical failure would probably be enough to prevent most people from trying it but it means you can still make an attempt.

I don't think it would break anything to allow this houserule, but it would lead to some of the situations that many on this thread find particularly troublesome, where the 20th level barbarian with 10 Int can use +18 - 10 = +8 Arcana to outperform the 1st-level 18 Int trained in Arcana wizard (1 + 4 = +5 Arcana) on some kind of trained-only test of obscure arcane theorems. That's something we've included safeguards to avoid, but it won't break anything if you do as you suggested, since it's not like the plot of a 20th level adventure is going to be likely to hinge on a standardized test duel between your 20th level barbarian and a 1st level wizard.

I know you don't want to have the Barbarian out "nerd" the wizard but by the time they reach that high level, shouldn't it make sense that they would have some Arcana prowess that they have experienced? They could have learned somethings through osmosis through proximity of partner members or the challenges they have faced in the past. If I had a Bard teammate that played his annoying flute every spare minute, I might have picked up at least some musical inclination from it. Or another party member speaks in another language often enough that I might pick it up.

Which leads me to another point, what happend to Linguistics? I use to love leveling that skill.
"You come upon a sign with strange writing on it. It's strange scripture leave you befuddled."
"WAIT, is it one of these languages?" *Start listing the 15+ languages you know*
"Sigh...its X language"

This might have been asked before but how is the balance between spells that just beat out skills?
i.e. I know 10+ languages vs Comprehend Language, I can climb good vs Spider Climb, I have a good intuition on lieing vs zone of truth? ETC


So where does Sense Motive lie in all this? Is it rolled under perception also?


42nfl19 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
So I read you can either counterspell or get a familiar. Are there more options than that? Or does every wizard start by making one of those two choices?
That is not even half the wizard class feat options for which a 1st-level wizard would meet the requirements.
Will there be a way to upgrade your counterspell with at least having the same school? Or even opposite effect? Slow vs Haste as an example? Also is counter spelling a wizard only thing now IF you have this class feat? While counter spelling was kind of lackluster in PF1, anyone with spells could do it as a ready action I believe. While it is cool and possible to counter spell someone, it seems lack luster in that you either have to be very lucky with the matchup(same spell), or know ahead of time what to prepare. So for the most part it is random. At the very least it is a reaction now and not a prepared action which thematically feels better for counter spelling.

So Mark(or any other dev), is counter spelling a wizard only thing now? Can you upgrade it to counter schools/opposite effects also?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
So I read you can either counterspell or get a familiar. Are there more options than that? Or does every wizard start by making one of those two choices?
That is not even half the wizard class feat options for which a 1st-level wizard would meet the requirements.

Will there be a way to upgrade your counterspell with at least having the same school? Or even opposite effect? Slow vs Haste as an example? Also is counter spelling a wizard only thing now IF you have this class feat? While counter spelling was kind of lackluster in PF1, anyone with spells could do it as a ready action I believe. While it is cool and possible to counter spell someone, it seems lack luster in that you either have to be very lucky with the matchup(same spell), or know ahead of time what to prepare. So for the most part it is random. At the very least it is a reaction now and not a prepared action which thematically feels better for counter spelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If any Devs can answer this, are Backgrounds suppose to replace Traits? I always felt in PF1 that traits acted as neat .5 feats to enhance your background. Or will Traits still exist as a thing in PF2? I feel like there are 2 schools of thought with traits. People who used them to spice up their character's backgrounds, and "min maxers" who only wanted the ability/buffs.

Speaking of backgrounds, Background skills were a non-core optional rule for PF1. Are they making a comeback also? Seeing that you already have the name Background claimed for PF2, it seems like my hopes are low. Background Skills were a neat way to fluff out your character who would normally have low skill points. Your Paladin loves to farm in his spare time? Now you can put points in Prof(Farming) to represent that.


I just had a weird thought and I hope this does not lead to more strife. Will smite evil only work on people with the evil alignment/subtype? I could see times where a neutral type character can be seen killing innocents. Or a neutral creature being controlled/commanded to do evil thing like attacking innocent civies. Will the act of evil be allowed to be smiteable? Or at the very least, evil/against in the eyes of your deity/tenants? It sometimes sucks when a thing is doing an evil act but nope he is not "really evil". So no smite for you. I would be happy for a reduced smite evil effect for an act that is evil. Like a chaotic good character can thinks that doing this evil act will result in a net good thing in the bigger picture but the pally is having none of that. Just like how we have "tiers" of codes, will we also have "tiers" of evil or something? To be flexible?


I am just somewhat overall glad about the Paladin even with all this division. First time I ever played a tabletop game was 4e. First every character was a Paladin. Then when we switched to pathfinder, guess what I played? Paladin. Paladin is my most favorite class. With a close second being the Magus.

I asked this before but now that it is late night and the board has slowed down I think I will try and ask again. Have Paladin spells been "rebalanced"? Because they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.


Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
I think I asked this before but how easy it
I think we should leave the discussion of magic items, beyond what Logan revealed in the gear blog, for a later date when it can get its own full blog. So I will answer all these questions with just three words and my most favorite of all punctuation marks, those heroes of the LISP programming language, parentheses: Etch Rune (Crafting).

With the tease if being Crafting, I hope it becomes more accessible to all/other classes that are not the wizard. It kind of sucked/was sub-optimal if your crafter of magical wondrous items was not a wizard. I am ok with other classes only ever reaching Master or something and the wizard gets Legendary prof or something.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, it is at all times, but it isn't quite right to say it's permanent. It's much better than permanent. But why is it much better? Because each day you can move the spirit to a different weapon and pick a different rune from the ones you have available to you. Need to fight a lich? Move it to a bludgeoning weapon and pick disrupting. Ice giant jarl's fortress in your way? Move your spirit to a reach weapon and give it flaming. Etc.
Ooh, I like this. I probably won't be moving it between weapons because I'm the type to pick a weapon and stick with it, but changing what the enchantment is on a day to day basis? That's good stuff.
I hope you don't mind, but we're trying to make your preferred playstyle less mandatory than it was in PF1 while still being useful and effective. It's still probably true that until you get more magic weapon drops or potency runes, you likely have one weapon with a higher potency that's enough more powerful that you use it most of the time, but we don't want to compound it with a lot of abilities that buff your abilities with one particular weapon over others, forcing you to lock yourself into, say, longswords in such a way that any other weapon would be a drastic step down mechanically.
I don't have any problems with that, just because I like to have a signature weapon doesn't mean it's the one true way to play. If I end up feeling gimped by not running around with a golfbag I'll let you know so you can make the proper adjustments. ;)
I doubt you will, it's still really efficient money-wise not to be toting around a bunch of fully kitted weapons. As an aside, let's avoid using the term 'gimp.' I know not everyone who uses it as a gaming term necessarily knows this, but it comes from a slur for someone who is disabled or physically impaired.

I think I asked this before but how easy it is to transfer weapon runes from one thing to another? Do you need an equal level of proficiency to the level of rune/weapon? Is it something available to everyone with downtime rules? How do runes stack? Let's say you have a +1 rune and a fire rune. Can you combine them? Or do you need a separate +1 flame rune if you want to have both abilities?

How does it work with characters that can essentially buff their weapons with their own self runes? Paladins and Magi could add enchantments to weapons with existing enchantments already. Is there a limit like before?


I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
So putting THAT aside, can we take your post as confirmation that the Paladin does still get traditional spellcasting, presumably of the 5th level variety? It wasn't entirely clear in the blog post, to the point where many were wondering if the Paladin didn't get spells at all and simply had the points pool to reflect its various (Su) and (Sp) abilities.
I can get wordy when it comes to design diary type information, but either of the two topics suggested (by you and HWalsh) would use up a lot of words to fully explain in a comprehensive fashion, and I already maxed out my words for the blog to cover the elephant in the room. I will say that those who think that hero's defiance may share a name with a PF1 spell that has a similar niche, but it's a much more powerful heal than people may be giving it credit for (19 dice of healing, and it doesn't even use your reaction!). Also, some people were asking about righteous ally. It's basically what you would expect from the blog. You either get a mount, a free weapon rune (at all times, not activated via an action for a set duration as in PF1) or some sweet shield buffs, and then you can take more feats to get even cooler abilities for your ally (mount upgrades, cooler runes, more shield benefits).

I don't know if you can tease this but is there a way to get the ability to be flexible? i.e. Depending on the situation you can choose a better mount, a better weapon, or a better shield. I feel like you can easily be flexible at a cost. You can choose a main thing to upgrade and buff. But later on you can gain the ability to use an un-upgraded/un-talented ability. You spend levels increasing your weapon rune buff. But then you gain the ability to use a vanilla/basic version of the shield buff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know these changes or proposed changes to the Paladin is so divisive but I would of really wanted some more Dev input. It was nice to get some clarifications, more teases, and future insight from them. It was nice to read them from the other blogs.


In PF1, due to the lower casting level, "offensive" paladin spells did not really scale well. With lower DCs and effects, they almost felt like a waste. It is almost better to spend spell slots on self buff spells. Has this been changed at all or rebalanced for the PF2 version?

Another note, with the mention of spell points, what will the paladin spend them on? Are they similar to the Cleric where we get special abilities based on our Deity?

Do paladins still have Channel Positive Energy? While it is a nice option, I almost never used it. But with how the clerics get a new channel energy, will Paladins see it also? Was Variant Channeling also not popular to make a non-core thing core? It added more spice to a somewhat boring ability.

Since you included oaths and litanies, super cool non-core things I also use, was variant divine bonds not popular as well? I can see how it was not compatible when people chose certain archetypes but what about others? Did anyone here also use variant divine bonds? I especially like the Agathion Bond for my healing focused Paladin I built.

Overall, just the idea that talks for more alignment freedom is happening brings me hope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

SLOTS? OH THANK GOD. This fixes one my major annoyances in game. You find a neat weapon with very good properties and enchantments BUT it is on a weapon that you are not specced into. Think weapon focus or chosen weapons from the Kensai. The ability to switch runes to upgrade your blade is such a grand idea. But I have to ask, how easy is it to switch runes from one item to another? Depending on the weapon prof, does that determine what craft prof you need to transfer?

On another note, dual shields when? Ultimate Turtle build when? Plate armor, two heavy shield. One Boss and one Spiked. Also of note, I love the idea of separating the weapon part of the shield. The idea of upgrading and swapping things really makes me want to make a crafter character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.
Can you give us a hint as to when two weapon fighting is going to be covered? Soon hopefully. It's something I'm very curious how it will fit with the new action economy. Hopefully it's a worthwhile thing to do, but not an "I win" button.

Since it seems like Unchained Action Economy was a prototype for PF2 actions, I think it would act similar. Only Mark could confirm of deny this.

Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows

When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand. You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties. Any other attack simple actions you take during your turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attack rolls on both the first and second attack simple actions taken during your turn; both of the attacks made on the second attack action are made at a –5 penalty. Further attack simple actions taken during the same turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attacks on each of your attack simple actions on your turn, though you take all the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting, as well as the cumulative –5 penalty per attack simple action (all attacks made as part of the same attack action have the same penalty).

The flurry of blows class feature works in a similar way. At 1st level, you can make an additional attack with a –2 penalty on your first attack simple action during a turn. At 8th level, you can make an additional attack on both your first and second attack simple actions during your turn. At 15th level, you can make an additional attack on each of your attack simple actions during your turn. You must, of course, take all the penalties associated with those attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, we're not really interested in forcing you into specializing in one very specific weapon. Probably the most we'd ask a character to do would be to decide they were into swords, and many characters don't even have to specialize that deeply. As to rapier/main gauche, personally, I feel like a good main gauche specifically for parrying was one of the few oversights in the incredibly wide diversity of PF1 weapons (there were options like a swordbreaker focused specifically on anti-weapon hijinks, but not really a main gauche).
Ah! When you mentioned the rapier earlier I wanted to ask if that fighting style would be supported, but I couldn't remember the name of the main gauche.
It is! It's better defense than rapier/shortsword but lower offense and better offense than rapier/shield but lower defense. Optimization corners tend to prefer being extreme in one direction and taking it as far as possible to a middle-ground...

Can you not shield bash? You say rapier/shield has lower offense than rapier/main gauche but you can still attack with the shield right? But if you do, do you lose the ability to raise it for defense? All this talk of main gauche, is this hypothetical or is it in PF2 now?

Another tangent but if you had two shields could you spend two actions to raise both of them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:


Question about agile, does that mean that agile has really great synergy with TFW to the point that it would be almost sub-optimal to not use it? And I might have missed it but is agile an enchantment you can get on weapons or is it that agile is a special property that exist in a certain class of weapons?
Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.

Does that mean TWF will be more flexible in PF2 than in PF1? I always felt that if you ever do TFW you always had to use a single weapon type because sometimes feats, classes/features, or etc asked you to choose a certain weapon. I might be wrong though. The idea of a samurai using a katana and wakizashi or a duelist using a rapier and a parrying dagger are very thematic.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Tursic wrote:
graystone wrote:
Tursic wrote:

I am see a lot of short sword fishing fighters in the future.

Are you using short swords to fish or are you fishing for short swords?

I am see a lot of short sword crit fishing fighter builds in the future. I forgot to crit and build.

The short swords being better at doing multiple attacks and if the first of the second attack is a crit, the enemy will be flat-footed which will mean a lower AC most of the time. Thus easier to get the need +10 over AC for a crit, even with the minuses to attack for multiply attacks.
If you have a spare hand, assuming we want to stay in the finesse family, it's even better if your first attack is with a rapier (it's deadly for even more damage if you do crit first time around, and agile doesn't matter yet on the first attack).

Question about agile, does that mean that agile has really great synergy with TFW to the point that it would be almost sub-optimal to not use it? And I might have missed it but is agile an enchantment you can get on weapons or is it that agile is a special property that exist in a certain class of weapons?


Mark, can you still shield bash? Are spiked shields still a thing? There was also no mention of the offensive defensive item in the blog either.

Better yet, I just want to dual wield shields and actually be more tanky. IDK how that works now where you have to use an action to raise your shield. Can you even do that?
Action 1: Shield Bash
Action 2: Raise Shield 1
Action 3: Raise Shield 2

The idea of sacrificing damage for defense always felt appealing to me. A Guardian Protector Paladin!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
It is kind of implied by the devs that Paladins will be the armored guys. Because what other class besides the fighters love going into battle with heavy armor?
I'm still hoping this isn't true. While I understand giving fighters weapons, I don't like the idea of attaching armor specialty to a class that also has moral codes.

I just hope that the Paladins are more flexible with their alignments just like how the Clerics can be flexible with theirs. No more Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and "neutral" paladin aka bad archetypes and not Cavaliers.

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>