Red Dragon

AnCap Dawg's page

42 posts. Alias of tuffnoogies.


Samurai wrote:
In my opinion, it's no more powerful than freely letting Prepared casters just choose which spell levels to prepare a spell at each day.

Prepared casters have to try to guess what spells they'll need to heighten during their daily prep. Sometimes they have a good idea of what the day will bring. Often they don't. Spontaneous casters can heighten as they need to. I think it's a pretty big deal to always have the spell you need heightened.

As I said, at 3rd level it won't make much of a difference. At 20th that's a *huge* advantage.

Samurai wrote:
How would you mark and remember "Today X is my signature spell"?

Your signature spells don't change daily. Put an asterisk next to one spell per spell level in your repertoire. That's your signature spell.

Letting spontaneous casters heighten all their spells freely is a significant power boost that will only get more noticeable at higher levels.

But, hey! It's your game. Do what's fun for you and your group.

Samurai wrote:

So here are my changes so far for P2. They cover a wide range of topics, from fixing the Alchemist's Research Fields (including adding a new one: Toxicologist), to adding a General feat for multiclassing, to fixes for lots of spells, and a new Condition: Entangled. I also included the Errata that we know about so far at the end, so you have 1 source for all the changes from the core book. This is version 1.0, and I plan to update it as needed. I welcome any feedback and questions about why I made the changes that I did, or suggestions for more changes, or concerns for the ramifications of these changes.

Samurai's Pathfinder 2E Changes

You really like spontaneous casters.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, fighters as well as champions, barbarians, and monks (with investment) can exert a zone of control as can monsters for whom that is part of their deal. I don't think we need to give AoOs to wizards, hedgehogs, and owlbears to make combat tactical when it should be.

Maybe owlbears. You can make a good case for most melee-based animals having AoO since a lot of them learn to "fight" by hunting for their dinner. That being said, I think the less AoOs the better. It's a major contributing factor in how slow combat was in 3.5/PF1.

I've been wanting to play an angelic that maybe devotes into paladin. I'll probably save that for when aasimar is available.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
State of confusion wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.
Not sure if serious or not.

Not sure if serious or not.

Was it intentional that the triggers don't include attacks on the champion itself?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.


I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I vastly prefer 2e's publish rate to 5e's.

Mellored wrote:

How is the balance between classes?

Which ones are feel over/under powered?

The game's only been out for a month. It's still too early to tell how the meta will shake out.

Do monks ever get unarmed attacks better than simple weapons?

Franz Lunzer wrote:
Yesterdays show was canceled.


I don't see this posted. Was there not an episode this week?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

I think it's more of a flavor change than anything. I've wished D&D was on the silver standard since the mid-80s - about the time Matthew Broderick was bragging about having a purse full of copper in Ladyhawke.

viemexis wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:

I don't think the magic traditions is needed at all and I wish cantrips were just lumped in with spells in general.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of fan-made sheets in the near future.

Did someone mention fan sheets? The simplified spell sheet on the character sheet I made might be to your liking.

It is! Very much so. Thank you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CyderGnome wrote:

Prior to 2nd Edition, a Goblin walking openly into most any town or village was asking to be killed rather quickly unless there we’re extreme extenuating circumstances and it could somehow convince people to pause long enough to even think before releasing the hounds. Now Goblins have become the party ‘s comic relief...

What’s the in-world explanation?

Where have you been? We hashed this out a year ago.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I found it more useful than the 3rd sheet.

I'm mildly disappointed in the spell sheet. I honestly can't figure out what all the boxes in the "spell slots per day" section are for. And I would have preferred putting innate spells and focus spells somewhere else so non-casters wouldn't use the whole sheet for those little sections. I don't think the magic traditions is needed at all and I wish cantrips were just lumped in with spells in general.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of fan-made sheets in the near future.

EDIT: Just noticed the "spontaneous spell slots remaining" note. Probably would have figured it out if I were making a sorcerer or bard.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

An Orc Oracle from the Mwangi culture would be pretty cool... An Orcacle, if you will.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In case anyone didn't know.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dwapook wrote:


Fairness / Selflessness

Freedom / Selfishness

This is deeply wrong. Selfishness and selflessness are about Good and Evil not Law and Chaos. Someone can easily be Chaotic Good and utterly selfless, or Lawful Evil and utterly selfish.

This right here is what's wrong with alignment. People can't agree on what the different aspects mean.

Sure it can be useful as a shorthand, but in the end it causes more arguments than it helps to avoid. We only have 35+ years of experience to show this.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Actual query here, are people thinking hero points are worth the hassle?

Again, actually asking this it is not rhetorical.

The occasional re-roll is nice to have. I usually forget about them at the time I need them though. I'm hoping I can at least think of them if my character's dying.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Do Hero Points carry over to the next session if you don't use them?

No. They are a per session resource.

Of course, I suppose that even that would be up to GM discretion if you do something weird such as end a session in mid-combat.

They carry over in Oblivion Oath.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Jason the man... or the dragon...Whichever he prefers really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

Now that's a crunchy blog post! Thanks for all the spoilers, Mark. The gogiteth looks pretty horrifying.

I've ordered Age of Ashes and Fall of Plaguestone. I still haven't decided which one I'll run first. A lot's riding on it as my group still likes 3.5 and I'm trying to win them over.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Focus pools may be capped at 2 or 3 points? Not sure what the deal is there, but Logan made a comment that seemed to imply it.

My first thought when he said this was maybe he was thinking of hero points. I think in Oblivion Oath they're limited to 3, but that may be because they have so many Jason didn't want them spending 5-6 on stabilization rolls. I also seem to remember something being said about a focus power that cost 5 focus at one time.

Or maybe Logan just worded it funny and we're reading too much into it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)
From now on this will be referred to as the "down the street date" ;-)

And real estate prices for nearby houses will go through the roof!

Ngodrup wrote:
FowlJ wrote:
Accidents happen, my dude. It probably doesn't actually have much to do with being near Paizo, and instead a mixup with shipping or the game store.
Not a mix up, and quite a lot to do with being near Paizo - they started shipping already, and this guy got lucky and was near the top of the pile, most likely. So it's arrived already, cause it didn't have to travel far.

Ah. Got it. I thought they had an onsite storefront or something. If they shipped it across the street that's obviously an honest mistake. Who would ship something that close on purpose?

Technotrooper wrote:

The guy's overall opinion on PF2 was:

"A super huge shout-out to Paizo and all its employees. You guys rock. 2E looks fkn awesome. I hope people got hyped from this thread and some pre-orders went down, because these books are pretty damn awesome, and 2E looks great."

No doubt. I'd say the same thing if I got my books 2 weeks early.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)

nohar wrote:
i still don't quite understand how xp works in the new system...the playtest rules didn't explain it well to me and since doomsday dawn didn't award xp i never got to see any examples in action...hopefully the final rules will do a better job of making me understand...

I'm a bit confused about it as well. I was hoping Stephen would go into more detail about that, but it got skipped for juicier parts that would be interesting to more players.

It seems weird to me that it only takes 1000xp per level instead of an increasing amount each level.

Seisho wrote:
that would be the same as for an normal attack

Well that's not so bad, then. I was under the impression that the penalty was only for melee attacks. I'm still not a fan, but at least it's not penalizing some classes and not others.

David knott 242 wrote:

We already know, from the most recent Know Direction podcast. Most spells take two actions to cast, so the only way to cast more than one spell in a round is to cast one of the rare single action spells.

And what's the penalty to the spell roll for casting that second spell?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

Not to sound rude or ungrateful as I do appreciate the effort, but at a glance it doesn't seem like much, if anything, has changed in the char-gen protocol since the playtest first dropped 11 months ago...


Jason's said he's rewritten the whole chapter to be clearer, but that's the only changes I've heard of.

Squiggit wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because if there's no degradation in attack actions, you just recreate the full attack paradigm that's part of the reason martials suck so much in PF1.

By making extra attacks degrade they become more of a choice and less of a default assumption about DPR. This is a good thing.

As much as you think you're championing martials right now, making extra attacks less mandatory is a buff to them, not a nerf. Your proposal would destroy them in the long run.


How about casting more than one spell?
Generally you can't even do that anyways.

You may be right. I guess we'll find out in about 4 weeks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Gorbie wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
So it begins...
"There is a hole in your mind" if you think Pathfinder Second Edition is anything other than a cynical money-grubbing attampt to copy D&D 5th edition. I wasn't impressed with 5E and I'm not jumping for joy about P2E since it means there will be little if any support for Pathfinder 1st Ed. which I and my group intend to keep playing.

That's weird cuz they missed 5e's three best features: No penalties for iterative attacks and finally killing off alignment and fire-and-forget spellcasting.

Rek Rollington wrote:
Christopk-K wrote:
Is the champion the paladin of any alignment? That would be awesome.
The champion is the class that the Paladin now falls under. A Paladin is a type of champion who has to be lawful good. The core rulebook includes other options for NG and CG. Other alignments will be added to other books eventually.

I wonder how this will look when they release the optional "no alignment" rules.

Bellona wrote:
I really, really hope that Paizo makes available a black/white printer-friendly PDF version of that character sheet. The one in this blog post has so many coloured areas, which uses way too much ink/toner and makes them useless for writing in remarks and the like. :(

I guess it's coming. Even if it doesn't I'm sure there'll be a ton of fan-made sheets out there.

Qundle from Oblivion Oath has got me thinking about an angelic sorcerer/paladin. Still considering their ancestry.

My usual choices are fighters or rogues. I might try goblin for that one.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I'm really sorry for how long this went (and thus how long it took to get up), but I hope you guys enjoy! And thanks to Rei for getting this monster up!

Worth it! Thanks!

graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.
LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)

Yep. And most of them wind up dead, too.