Ampersandrew's page

I have 3 concerns:

1) Characters from the Core 2 book that are created after November 15 but before Core 2 won't, by this, have a Remaster Rebuild to change themselves. This is a non-issue if they're granted specific free rebuilds when Core 2 comes out.

It has been pointed out, and I missed this myself. Each character gets one rebuild before December 2024, That's 14 months out and after the release of Core 2.

If you rebuild now, you don't get another one.

Congratulations on an amazing career, I hope you enjoy whatever comes next. Thanks for all the joy you brought into my life through the various companies you've been involved in.

I haven't done a Humble Bundle before, where do these products show up?

When you back it, Humble BUndle give you a code for each level that your contribution covers. You input those codes on the paizo.com store. The digital assets are added to your library as if you'd bought them on paizo.com.

Congratulations, Tim!

I also hope like heck that it doesn't make something like HLO mandatory to be able to access said Boons (0 ACP boons are not 'free' if one has to spend five hours playing AND pay into a subscription programme that double-taxes a player.)

Hopefully the flavorful 'neat' stuff remains on the chronicle and the 'heavy mechanical' stuff moves to the ACP with either a discounted or 'free' price.

Why would that be mandatory? as far as I can see, no-one but you has even mentioned HLO.

That HLO code on the top of the chronicle sheet? They mentioned recently is no longer an HLO code, now it's just a chronicle code that some of their partners may choose to use.

Just to give an alternative data point, I have been largely ignoring boons on character sheets since I started playing in Season 2.

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Has anyone else never heard of these people before?

Yep, same as I never heard of Paizo before Dungeon and Dragon.

That's not really comparable, Paizo were created to publish Dungeon and Dragon. Beadle and Grimm's were not created to produce these books.

Ampersandrew wrote:

Can I get these on Fantasy Grounds? If not, why not?

Also can't people who prefer roll20 get something nice every once a while? ;D

They absolutely can, I didn't ask for your toys to be taken away.

Being available on your platform of choice doesn't prevent them being available on my platform of choice. It's not a zero sum game, they don't have to remove them from you to make them available to me.

Anyway, Aaron answered my question.

Though I must admit, I'm personally not a fan of giant corporate logos. I like wearing something a little more subtle..

This. So much this. I absolutely hate massive logos. I buy shirts that fans of a series will probably recognise, but everyone else will just think is a cool image.

In my opinion, those Iconic Character Ts are unwearable. Except the Fumbus monochrome, for whatever reason. That art has been allowed to stand on its own.

The Red Dragon T at least has the logo out of the way of the art. Why can't they all be like this? I'd prefer them without the logo at all, but at least the logo isn't obscuring the art on the Red Dragon design. A tiny subtle logo or the Pathfinder stylised P would be better again.

If you insist on having a massive unsubtle logo can you not put it on the back of the shirt?

I'm not a fan of these at all, but I would have bought four or five of them if they were better designed.

Edit: Now that I've looked closer the knights of the everflame stuff with the sword is half decent. Logo on the back out of the way. Is a vast improvement.

Allen Snyder wrote:

This topic has been covered in depth on various other threads.

In short: yes they plan to finish AR for everything in PF1 in the time honored tradition of "Soon"

And it never hurts to poke the bear.

I think you may have been lied to on the whole harm arising from poking a bear front.

I don't play sanctioned content in PFS mode, mostly because I have no interest in butchering a story to fit in a time constrained blob.

Back when modules where first sanctioned for PFS, I played a module under the rules where you make an appropriate character, play the adventure and then get a chronicle. I thought that was excellent way to use the content. I didn't like the system as it was subsequently amended.

I have also played APs in campaign mode and taken chronicles for them. This new system seems to be a pretty good fit for the way I use modules.

I don't like the Keepsake thing. I really, really don't like the keepsake thing. Pick one of these things and lose all the rest. That sucks. I also don't like that the module isn't re-playable. I would probably find the keepsake thing more tolerable if it was.

I also think we need better rules for partial completion of a module.

DropBearHunter wrote:

. . . but what about a professionally crafted electronic character sheet?

How about HeroLab Online?

Have they improved it since the playtest? I tried to use it at a con and found it next to useless. You can't rely on having reasonable web access everywhere, that to me makes it a non-starter.

re: Replays

Option 1 seems to be the only option that allows for continued play on an ongoing basis. So I'd have to go for that.

I think I would really prefer an option 1.5 that relates to option 1 the way option 3 relates to option 2.

Option 1.5: A sliding scale, fixed number of replays based on a percentage of total games played that would renew on a seasonal basis.

If you've played a lot you get more replay opportunities because it's harder to find a game you haven't played yet. This should allow players who wish to continue playing first edition to do so, indefinitely.

What I really want to see is better support in the IT. The system currently complains when you use a GM star to replay something that you've played it before. I would like some way to tell it that its authorised.

I looked at the mirror that was posted above, but that is in weird code I dont understand how to read...so thats useless to me as well.

It's just html, if you're interacting with this forum you know how to use html.

You can grab a copy of that archive, save it to your hard disk and open the file index.html with your internet browser of choice.

visit this URL https://github.com/Mekkiss/pathfinder1.1
click the big green "clone or download" button.
click the download zip.
save the zip file
unzip the downloaded file
explore the unzipped file
click on the index.html

then click on the link that says "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document"

That should give you your own copy of the PRD.

Agree, this seems really awful. It has an activation action. You activate something by spending rp. I really hope this dies a swift death, the more I see it, the less I like it.

It seems like bags of holding just became useless nonsense. So much for we're getting rid of the big six so you can use flavorful magic items.

These used to be really desirable magic items.

Firstly, I'm moderately annoyed that these aren't shipping yet. I appreciate the efforts Paizo are making.

What I find particularly galling is I ordered direct from Paizo because I didn't trust Amazon not to screw it up. They made a right pig's ear of the Startinder release. Some people who ordered from Amazon had to wait for the second printing because they over sold their preorders. There isn't going to be a second printing of this.

Now I find that in spite of avoiding them, they've still managed to dick me about. The only physical product I didn't order direct (the maps) is apparently still sitting on a dock in New York. Frustrating. I'm visiting a city 100 miles away to pick up those maps and made a trip out if it.

At this point I'd make a joke about Paizo refunding my hotel bill, but some people are actually that unreasonable.

Yours grumpily a slightly annoyed UK resident sitting in a Dublin hotel.

The best way to fix multiclassing is to not have classes.

Make everything feats and let people pick what they want when they level.

Maybe, but that's not Pathfinder. Paizo are attempting to upgrade the game and not lose the players who preferred 3rd edition D&D to the editions that followed it.

Dropping classes is a step too far.

I have absolutely no idea what VMC is. If folk are going to use acronyms for obscure sh*t they should really define them.

I absolutely despised the insipid not really multiclassing at all that wizards did in 4th edition. I'm really hoping we're not getting that.

The fact that they're leaving it so late and the fact that they haven't shown us anything about it makes me nervous that they know people aren't going to like whatever it is we're getting.

Hoping to be wrong.

My curiosity: The preview states that spell-based options will be available for the Ranger

No, it doesn't. It says they would be easy to do. My impression is they will not be done at any point during the playtest. You might see them in the full version.

The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.

I do not believe that adding activation makes this clearer. Using fewer words is almost always better.

+1 for simply being Operate, Focus and Command.

Arachnofiend is talking about 2nd edition

When they add the phrase "as it is in PF1" that's pretty much talking about first edition.

A burning hands only did 2 damage? I thought they were bumping up the damage of first level spells a bit.

it's still possible to roll really poorly.

On the other hand: several of those feats provide amazingly trivial bonuses and penalties that aren't worth tracking. After PF1, 3.0, 3.5, 4th and 5th, why in the world would you ever consider -1 to be worth tracking? Literally decades of statistical data indicates they aren't.

I'm pretty sure you have exactly zero decades of statistical data about whether -1 is significant in PF2.

We haven't seen all the maths, but the bits we have seen indicate that smaller bonuses and penalties are a bigger deal in this edition.

thflame wrote:

I was REALLY hoping that Vancian magic would go die in a fire. D&D has slaughtered that sacred cow, we can too. Preparing spells is fine, but it's much more simple of you let players cast spontaneously from the list they prepared.

PF 1 and PF 2 have this: they're called sorcerers.

Dude, It looks you've totally been playing sorcerers wrong all this time!

Sorcerers don't get to prepare spells, the class you're looking for in PF1 is the Arcanist. Which doesn't yet exist in PF2.

Cleric first and paladin last. Not sure what to read from that

Can I pledge to not get a paladin update? ;-)

At this point, I can't see anything other than a LG Paladin and only the LG paladin ending up in the PF2 core book.

If that's the case, I'd rather see it dropped as a core class and presented in its own book with all 9 alignments presented. If you haven't got room to do it properly here, then don't do it at all.

I really hate alignment restrictions on class entry, in my opinion, they're all rubbish and should be left in the previous edition (where they don't really belong either).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Who said magic would be rarer?

But yeah, backup weapons are likely to remain a thing.

Resonance.

Magic items won't be as available as in PF1.

Resonance doesn't apply to weapons.

Edit: I could have sworn I read this somewhere. Now I can't find it.

But sure, there should be options for those wanting to play 5e-style.

I don't want 5e style, I want PF1 arcanist style.

Actually without having knowledge of the whole games context I can't say. For example though pure Vancian casting is kinda of a hassle if you only have max 3 spells per level, it kinda isn't.

Having only three spells per level makes the problem with Vancian casting worse, not better.

I don't think they're running a poll, but just in case. Yes, I think Vancian casting should not be the default.

Nothing about either the Wizard or the Sorcerer appealed to me, I've never played either. I have played arcanists. I'll probably try the wizard in the playtest, I think I'm going to find it limiting. The only light I can see at the end of the tunnel is the scaling cantrips letting you have something useful to do.

Speaking of diagonals...

If we keep squares as the default i hope they switch to the simpler no extra distance calc for diagonals from 5th ed.

Oh lord! No!

Just No.

This is the first thing I changed when I playtested 5th edition. If I want to play 5th edition, I know where to find it.

Tangent101 wrote:

Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

A "nerf" is when you change something to be weaker in a game. So what was the original version of this ability in PF2E that was nerfed?

In PF1 you could move and channel. In PF2 you can't do that, the area channel takes all three of your actions. You either need to channel where you are right now, or move and hope that the battlefield doesn't change significantly before it's your turn again.

You might consider that a nerf. As far as the amount of healing that it does, I think it's better, but casting it consumes your entire turn.

How long is the sleep poison effective on the blade? Will it last a whole combat or just a few rounds?

It's probably not intended, but:

"If the next attack made by the weapon is a hit or critical hit, the target must attempt a save against the poison"

reads to me like it lasts for one attack. Exactly one attack and is then gone whether it hits or not. If they wanted the other reading it should be something like

"The next attack made by the weapon that is a hit or critical hit"

Apart from that, in the current rules poison lasts for one successful attack. Nothing I've read here implies more.

Well, even when my aasimar has 12 or 14 languages, they still run into things they can't easily read.

I hate sinking 8 or 9 skill points into something to be totally outshone by your 1st level spell. Comprehend languages anyone?

Ampersandrew wrote:

FedoraFerret wrote:

The "Operate Activation" action is actually making me angry the more I think about it. Is there a reason it's not just called an Item or Use Item action?

It seems really clumsy wording to me as well. Mark says it makes more sense elsewhere in the rules document. I'm having trouble imagining a context where "Operate Activation action" is better than "activation action".

Ah, that's a different question than "Why Operate Activation instead of Operate." There's an even more solid reason for why not just Activation: Not all items back in PF1 were use-activated, and neither are all items here. If you use a command word or activate an item mentally by concentrating, those are different actions.

Good answer. Although to be honest, now I'm wondering if this is the new use activated, what was wrong with Use Activation. i.e. 3 Use Activations.

The "Operate Activation" action is actually making me angry the more I think about it. Is there a reason it's not just called an Item or Use Item action?

It seems really clumsy wording to me as well. Mark says it makes more sense elsewhere in the rules document. I'm having trouble imagining a context where "Operate Activation action" is better than "activation action".

I believe you but still 1 in 8000 does still seem pretty unlikely. You could probably not see that happen in an entire campaign. Considering we are rolling a d20 their is really only so much variation we can have. so a 1 in 8000 doesn't seem to unlikely, I think I've only seen 2 1's in a row happen like around 3 times in the 14 years i've been playing.

When I was GMing for our Wednesday night group, our Cleric rolled a natural 1 on his attack roll against the gelatinous cube, then he rolled a natural 1 on his reflex save to avoid being engulfed. Then he rolled a natural 1 on his fortitude save to avoid being paralyzed.

GMs don't kill characters ... three natural 1s in a row kills characters.

There were no fumble rules involved in this and the character still died. In fact, that cube killed 3/4 of the party. We had 3 20s in a row in my game on fantasy grounds last night. Three different players, but still 3 consecutive rolls. 1 in 8000 is still far too likely to happen.

I absolutely hate both critical roll tables and critical fumble tables.

1549 posts about the first announcement and 600 odd since I last looked at it, what could they still be talking about?

600 odd posts later it turns out the answer is absolutely nothing. I feel stupider for having read the last two pages about how no-one understands the game and we're all playing it wrong.

Roll on August.

I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
...

The problem with a healing limit on the recipient of Cure Light Wounds from a wand is illustrated by a Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game that my wife played. My wife's rogue Trixie and a fighter Kazu were the front line for the party, with the rogue using her repositioning power to set up targets for the fighter. They took the brunt of the damage from opponents. Healing in D&D 4th edtion was limited by a character's own healing surges. Even healing potions consumed a healing surge from the character. A rogue had fewer healing surges than a fighter, so guess who ran out of healing surges first?

Thus, that party occasionally had one frontline character unable to heal herself at all when the rest of the party was able to go through several more rooms. Even if Trixie moved to the back, she was at risk from an arrow or fireball. Consider the awkwardness of that. "We want to press on, but Trixie might die."

You've just reminded me that dealing surges was one of the things I hated about 4th edition. I wasn't concerned about resonance, now I'm slightly apprehensive. I suppose we'll see how it works in practice come August.

Rather than a healing cap, a cap in the number of times per day a spell can benefit a character would be better.

For example, 10 per day would place minimal wand CLW at an average of 55 hp per day, while that figure jumps to 95 for CL 5 and jumps yet higher if being cast by a character with special bonuses on the spell.

Do you realise that your suggestion sounds almost exactly the same as the resonance system that will be in the play test?

Grovestrider wrote:

I also am against having the base speed (or stride) of a race be an odd number. It really does muck things up when things like the Hampered or Slowed conditions come up.

That depends how these work. If it is a flat: Reduce speed by 5' or 10' then being odd or not is immaterial.

From the playtest podcasts, slow is a condition that makes you lose actions on a turn, not a reduction in the amount that you can stride. Slow 1 makes you lose 1 action, slow 2 makes you lose 2 actions.

For difficult terrain, you're counting the amount of movement to enter each square. In PF1 it takes 15' of movement to enter a difficult square diagonally, and 10' to enter it non-diagonally*. If it stays the same, this means a character with 25' move in difficult terrain, can only move one square diagonally and one non-diagonally, or two squares non-diagonally.

Edit, oops, forgot to say: difficult terrain doesn't halve your movement speed, that's a shorthand way to think about what's happening. You can stride through one square of difficult terrain (10' or 15' as appropriate) and then spend the rest of your movement normally if you're in normal terrain.

* I really think there should be a word that means this, but all I can think of is orthogonally or perpendicularly, neither of which is quite right.

Razmir's age shouldn't be too much of a concern though, because powerful arcane casters can often find a way around that, but it would be a fun idea to play a bunch of acolytes who to climb in rank in the clergy to become the new "Razmir" once he dies for whatever reason. Maybe there have been already multiple Razmirs without the populus knowing.

The dread pirate Razmir!

The only thing it was useful for was deciding when your character got iterative attacks. Since iterative attacks are gone, then there is no need for BAB.

Pending the playtest when we see what effect its removal has, I think it's probably good bye and good ridance.

For all the "oh I'll just ignore this and won't have them in my Golarion" people. That doesn't help with PFS, which will now have goblin PCs. I suspect that we'll be overrun with them.

I think this is a terrible, horrible idea.

Not a fan of this at all.

New ancestry system seems ok. If the +2 to put whereever you want is universal, then this is good.

Apart from having goblins foisted on me, this seems good.

Back in 3.0/3.5, the way this was discouraged was with the exp penalty. It made single level dipping and having more than two classes far more difficult.

...

Should that be brought back?

Wait! I know the answer to this one.

No.

GM stars: I'd like to see option 2, the subsidized Metric implemented. Folk with stars should know how to run games in Golarion and have put time into the Campaign, getting the new stars should be slightly easier for them. I also like Runes as the name for the new star. I'm less happy about New Metric with reward, either the option is bland and uninteresting or new players resent not being able to get it. If they complain and you open it up to them, now your established GMs are annoyed. Best to avoid these problems.

Character Rebuilds: New campaign, New rules, New start. Nothing about having characters in the legacy campaign should carry over to the new campaign.

First edition boons: If you do something make it bland and uninteresting or you'll create resentment from people who can't get it. I have no interest in it unless you put something cool on it, then I'm annoyed. Also not a fan of Race boons, please don't lock races in the new campaign behind a boon.

Legacy Campaign Replay:I've been listening to "unlimited replay is damaging to a campaign" for years now. I don't think I've seen anyone specify what problems replay causes in an organised play campaign. Since I don't know what problems you're avoiding I can't really offer solutions or point out that they no longer apply to the legacy campaign (if that happens to be the case).

So, with that in mind, I'm in favour of unlimited replay in the legacy campaign after we start the new one. it will ease table scheduling and allow people to play out the tail end of multiple characters. Failing that, some kind of Heightened GM star recharge. However we have some players who don't GM and heightened GM star recharge doesn't help us seat them at a table. Favoured Character again doesn't help much with scheduling issues, but might be better than the status quo.

If we don't add more replay options then scheduling legacy tables becomes more and more problematic over time. What I'd really like to see is unlimited replay with different characters, I'd be happy if this was phased in. Limited replay available starting August 2019, unlimited replay (as long as it's with different characters) starting August 2020 — a year after the new campaign starts. Hopefully we'll find that Pathfinder 2 is so much superior to Pathfinder 1 that this becomes a non-issue, everyone will want to be playing the new stuff. If that doesn't happen, we should do as much as we can to help people bring their characters to a satisfying conclusion, only the individual player can decide what that means for them.

Incentivising play testing: The prize table model sounds good.

Given the way Amazon handled the Starfinder release, lots of folk with preorders didn't get a book in the first printing. I'm not in any way prepared to trust them with a preorder for a book that if you don't get the first printing you're not getting.

F5 F5 F5 etc.

I mostly like what I see in this.

The way the blog is written, it seems that sneak attack, surprise attack and debilitating strikes are always there and don't have to be selected via a class feat. So, there are definitley some things that every rogue gets. This is nice. Waiting 'til 9th level to get debilitating strike(s) is less so. I'll reserve judgement on that 'til I've seen the playtest doc.

One thing concerns me.

"The design goals for the rogue were simple: she had to be nimble, skillful, and able to take full advantage when enemies are unaware."

I really only ever play rogues. I almost never play rogues with archtypes. Because every archtype writer under the sun seems to think that trap finding is optional and can be dropped on a whim—never to return. To me trap finding is the class defining rogue ability.

For a large part of first edition rogues were the only class that could disable magical traps with disable device. I'm really hoping that in this new edition, rogues are once again the absolute best at dealing with traps/hazards. They can be joint best, but they need to be capable of being best.

Trap finding, good reflex saves and evasion. Not addressed at all.

Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Honestly everything I've seen so far suggests that a LOT of material is being locked behind class gates.

And I am seriously not okay with that.

This is what I despised about 4th edition D&D. I really ,really hope we're not getting it in P2.