Aramar's page

The hustle exploration activity can only be used for [con mod x 10] minutes at a time, but given that it doesn't cause fatigue, can I assume a character can take a quick break and resume hustling?
On the one hand it works better for long-distance running, but I wonder if hustling for effectively the entirely exploration day was intended.

Speaking of exploration time, it seems like the rule that a party is fatigued after 8 hours of overland travel (in ideal conditions) should be listed in a more upfront fashion than being hidden in the temperature effects table. I read the line about precipitation reducing non-fatiguing travel time to 4 hours and spent an hour flipping through the exploration sections trying to find what that 4 hours was reduced from.

I don't think it would be a problem - as you note, with four ability boost per 5 levels, it would just take two boosts to increase a score from 4->5 or 5->6.
I feel like there was a proposal to scrap scores during the playtest, but it didn't happen due to concerns with how unfamiliar or nontraditional it would look?
I've run a handful of one-shots (playtest and 1e) where we used only modifiers, and all but one player were at ease with it immediately.

If you ask me, 1E (and D&D 3E in general) is way more "codified" to satisfy rules lawyers than 2E, and I feel once again empowered as a GM, at least based on what I've seen so far of the new edition. In my opinion there are less "hard" rules and more freedom, making the game more enjoyable and easier to both run and play, regardless whether you're a novice or a veteran. I'm really, really excited about 2E, but YMMV, of course.

(BTW, I have several rules lawyers in my group, so I should know what I'm talking about! ;))

And for me, fewer hard rules means more difficulty and confusion in running and playing. As a GM I feel cast adrift, rather than empowered. But I look forward to the smoother operation, and maybe it's easier to codify/solidify rules from 2E than it was to loosen rules from 1E, so we can all be happy :)

On another couple notes, do the class symbols have any significance?
And was anyone else lost by the organization of the magic items chapter? Both because of all consumables except scrolls not being macro-alphabetical but micro-alphabetical under Consumables, but also the font size and spacing choices for section headers?

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

I for one, as a wizard fan, would see the arcane bond options as definitely adding more to the 'interesting' factor. Both for crunch and fluff (would bonded items have cosmetic/mechanical flexibilites like familiars?)

So, playtest is over after December. And the full game comes out in August. So will it just be 8 months of putting art and PDFs together?

They also have to allow significant times for the actual printing process - not just for the initial back-and forth of various proof copies, but for the actual printing of as many books as they'll want/need for the initial run.

Yeah, in some cases spells have a fairly high chance of the save being made, sometimes even if you aren't targeting the foe's best save, but this is offset significantly by almost all saving throw spells retaining some effect on a successful save, allowing you to inflict minor debuffs or decent damage while you try to get something stronger to stick. This is a dynamic I FAR prefer to save-or-lose from PF1.

I don't think it's even 'some cases' or 'sometimes'; while a hypothetical bad/worst base save for a 9th level PC could be +9 (only 40% chance of success in the Moonmere scenario), it's very easy or even automatic to increase that figure via increasing ability scores, inherent or accessible save rank increases, and item bonuses.

And I would agree with Fuzzypaws that a lot of spells do very little on successful saves. The effects of non-energy spells (typically?) don't last more than a round, and may or may not do much on that round anyway, while energy spells don't do any more than a hit with a weapon. Which, tbh, I'm mostly okay with, since it's standard that even a successful dodge of a flame breath or fireball will still singe, so a save against blindness or confusion causing temporary flat-footedness or loss or a single action seems more or less in line. But I don't think these results should always be the most common or expected results, as they are now.

The Night Herald cultists at the Moonmere have a spell save DC of 22. And while it's been noticed that certain enemy stats are arbitrarily inflated to hit target numbers, that's not true of the save DC which appears to just be the enemy level of 8 plus the Cha bonus of 4 (plus 10). In contrast, the cultists' to-hit bonus of +17 with the crossbows has been seemingly inflated, since the +17 is much higher than lvl+dex+prof+potency.
The result is that the cultists were, at least in my run of the adventure, much more reliable as archers rather than as casters. More attacks per round, larger 'pool' of attacks (30 bolts vs handful of spells), and higher to-hit odds even on iterative attacks. The only tradeoff was the crossbows' moderate damage (2d8+2d6) versus the spells' battlefield control.

PC Numbers:
Barbarian: F +16, R +14, W +13; AC 26
Monk: F +13, R +14, W +15; AC 24
Cleric: F +16, R +12, W +16; AC 28

The cultists didn't have any spells which targeted Reflex saves, so the lowest save bonus was effectively a +13, which means the players had anywhere between 60%-75% chance of saving against any given spell.
In contrast, the odds of not taking a hit from a initial crossbow bolt ranged between 30%-50%. (the iterative bolt matched the spellcasting odds, at 55%-75%)

These are just the base numbers, not accounting for any magic or conditions. However, while there are options for decreasing an opponent's save numbers, most such options allow an unmodified save first, and still don't bring the above percentages much closer to one another. In contrast, there are multiple options for boosting one's own to-hit or lowering an enemy's AC without allowing them to make a roll, e.g. Heroism, true strike, flanking, etc..

These numbers can go both ways; the cleric's spell DC of 23 has somewhere between a 50-60% chance of success against 1 level lower cultists and 40-20% against the 1 level higher dragon, which certainly feels low when I look at it but, as none of players have recently played offensive spellcasters, I can't say how it feels in-game.

I noticed the high odds of saving against magic in Sombrefell Hall, but I thought maybe that was just because, again, the enemy magic was targeting Fort/Will and my players were all armored clerics/paladins. But in Mirrored Moon Enervation was unlikely against any in the party and I couldn't even keep a barbarian confused for more than a round, and where's the fun in that?

I'd like to see Expert/Master Spellcaster happen at much lower levels and allow for other possible lower-level methods of increasing spell save DC's (unless I missing a part of rules, in which case please direct me). I'm not looking to steamroll my players, but I'd like slightly better odds of injecting offensive (damaging and status) magic into combat.

Logan Bonner wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

This playtest is going by so fast...

Tell me about it...

I'm not the guy from the post, but I've been constantly playing 5 hours/week for my group and I'm still at part 4: Mirrored Moon. We all want to do the surveys and contribute for PF2E, but we can't find time to play more. We don't want to rush the Campaign because we fell we'll be sending poor feedback if we do that, but we don't want to can't be able to contribute because we couldn't keep up with the dates.

The surveys are open until New Year's, I believe, so those us who are still behind can continue to play and submit surveys until that time.

If a character gains level 15 and chooses a legendary skill they can't yet choose a legendary skill feat. All they have is a +1. If they meet a level 16 masterful character they have exactly the same numerical proficiency and skill feat categories.

All the more reason for the proficiency tiers to innately offer something in addition to the small bonus.

I don't think the +lvl is to blame for the numberwall of Table 10-2, at not any more than any arrangement that allows, though whatever method, an X-lvl character to have an X bonus to their skill check (see ealier editions with lvl+3 max bonus). Rather, the wide variety of figures in the table itself comes from the intense mathing on success/failure rates for optimized/non-optimized characters. The higher levels of difficult increase a "base" DC by more and more as the levels rise not because of the +lvl but because the characters are assumed to be playing with higher numbers from pumped ability scores, magic items, and various magical buffs, while still expected to be somewhere in a small range of success percent values.

I'm not nearly as good as Lyee at estimating and setting DCs based on desired failure/success rates, which both means that not only do I try to use the table when I need to, but it's still confusing to use since the minimum of static reference points means I don't always know where to start looking.

GM accidentally ran them as Greater Shadows (I even queried an "are you sure?" when the first one enfeebled us),

No, they're supposed to be Greater Shadows. I accidentally ran them as normal Shadows and was unimpressed at their effectiveness until I was reviewing everything after the adventure and realized my error.

I'm glad you bring this up, because using Spiritual Weapon multiple times in a turn by Concentrating multiple times in a turn is just what one of my player's clerics did the other night. It felt slightly counter-intuitive, but reading through the magic section we couldn't locate anything that would suggest otherwise.
Also, since Concentration is a single action that only requires a spell to be active, it's possible to take two actions to cast a spell and then using the third action to immediately Concentrate on that spell, unless the spell explicitly prohibits that, like Flaming Sphere does (Spiritual Weapon, OTOH, does not).

graystone wrote:

Alchemists sure could use this instead of having bombs/mutagens forced on everyone.

I'm not sure what the other paths would be though. Poisoner? Healer? Bombs and elixirs (including mutagens) are kind of the core of the alchemist. Making those better would be a good first step. But certainly expanding the alchemist would be good too. As it is they're the ones with bombs that aren't that great and sub-par time-delayed buffs.

Definitely poisoner - my alchemist player was disappointed that improved offensive poison options were only in the rogue class.

thenobledrake wrote:

Maybe I'm doing this wrong, but... isn't this a situation where the party can all be trying and only 1 needs to succeed?

Even if your whole party needs to roll a natural 20 in order to succeed, that doesn't make the chance that someone hits the DC 5% - it's actually an 18.55% chance that the party succeeds. If you have a party that each member has a 20% chance of passing the DC, the chance of one of them getting it is 59.04%.

So unless I am doing this all wrong, that seems like it's not actually that difficult of a check to succeed at in practice despite that the DC can give a bit of a shock at first glance.

The math of getting to roll with everybody is indeed surprising at first. Imagine a level 9 party with a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, and a cleric. The cleric never raises Perception and has +13, the wizard raises Wisdom as a 4th stat and winds up with +11, the fighter also has a 4th stat Wisdom and has +13, and the rogue also has 4th stat Wisdom and has +13.

Now suppose only one of these characters gets to roll (party's choice) against DC 26. The chance of success is only 40%. But what if all of them can roll against DC 30 with no penalty for failures? Each individual character has a lower chance of making it, but the chance of overall success has gone up to 54% (+5 here would have preserved the probability at a roughly 42%, but +4 is a pretty good rule-of-thumb that is likely to err in the PCs' favor).

I had wondered where the +4 came from. I'd rather see it as something to consider when setting a DC (as in choosing level and difficulty) rather than as an arbitrary modifier just to keep success odds similar.

- It is unclear what action can be taken to allow player to immediately roll a DC 15 flat check against Fire, Acid, Electricity etc.

Here is how I might fix it for Persistent Fire, Acid, Electricity Damage...

Player can interact/manipulate 1 action to pour water on self/burning victim, Wash off Acid, or somehow disperse the electric charge...(not sure flavor-wise... and there could be other methods DM fiat based on player creativity).

It'll be good for a GM to know how the victim of a paladin's smite can rid themselves of persistent good damage. Douse themselves in unholy water?

Tamago wrote:

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

They didn't do that because they don't want Players to be able to reference a chart and inform the GM that they automatically succeed at something. That is something I saw in pfs/pf1 all the time.

While I, on the other hand, want my players to be able to just that. It makes my job a lot easier, especially if I don't have any particular DC or easier/harder difficulty in mind.

4) Take 10 no longer exists and assurance is all but useless.

I hadn't thought about this before, but Assurance for leaping really can be useless for a significant set of characters - Until it hits Legendary, it only gives the '20' result. Which is guaranteed failure for a High Jump attempt and which allows a distance of 15 feet on a Long Jump attempt...which is already the distance a character/creature with 30+ movement (or Powerful Leaper) can Leap without making a check anyway.

The Powerful Leaper feat also causes some superfluousness issues - in boosting vertical Leap to a 5-ft base, it's not clear which a successful Athletics check would achieve anymore, since that also only allows a 5-ft Leap, rather than a +3 ft Leap, for instance. It effectively overrides any usefulness of Assurance for vertical leaping as well - Legendary assurance would only guarantee the 30 check to High Jump 5 ft, but again, the lvl 2 feat already guarantees that without a check.

It took players, on average, almost 10 minutes less to make their 4th-level characters that it did to make their 1st-level characters, which is great news.

One of my players mentioned that character creation moved a lot faster not just because he was more familiar with the rules, but because he went for the 'ABC' method that the book seems designed towards, rather than starting with a specific concept and looking for the pieces to make it work. I hope this is something they clarify when they give their feedback after we finish our run of Pale Mountain, and I hope a few other players clarify the same.

Furious Focus:
The Press trait was confusing. Please add text clarifying that this can only be used when the character already has a MAP.

The description of the Press trait is in the sidebar right next to Furious Focus, and the second line of that description states that Press feats can only be used when affected by MAP

Can the final rules please include multiclass dedications for all core classes (except perhaps Paladin and Monk)?

I'm pretty sure that's the plan; the four base class archetypes in the playtest book were to see if the mechanic/concept would work at all (and to save space); the other classes will show up once the core is ironed out.

Cool, but aside from Ancestries, pretty particular, I would like to see some solid considerations/comments on over-aching stuff (+Level, 4-tiers of success, monster stats/maths, spells, etc).

I would think they'll touch more on those topics once they have playtest data from higher level adventures - with primarily only 1st level play to pull data from, a lot of spells and aspects of the proficiency system won't have come up yet.

While class-locked feats are not a huge hit at my gaming table, we nonetheless took it as an opportunity to explore what other options a class might have in place of what we were expecting (e.g. while the barbarian no longer gets AoO, what other useful Reactions might they get instead that we would enjoy just as much?)
Reading through the upcoming class feats and preparing to test them, there are a few items that we felt needed highlighting or clarification:

- The barbarian's Sudden Charge/Leap and Furious Sprint are not marked with a Move trait, while the Fighter's Sudden Charge is marked with a Move trait. This would indicate the Barbarian does not provoke an AoO when using these abilities, but a fighter would. This may be an editorial issue.
- The barbarian's No Escape and the rogue's Reactive Pursuit are similar concepts, but the barbarian's is level 2 vs the rogue's level 4, and the barbarian can always move even if the target goes farther, while rogue can't move at all unless the target stays close enough. Would it be fair for these abilities to be made identical?
- The fighter and barbarian both get Swipe; the barbarian's can only be made while raging but can be made on any attack of the turn, while the fighter can make Swipe anytime but only as an Open (first) attack. Assuming this is the intended trade-off?
- It's still weird that AoO is locked behind only fighter and paladin, and Quick Draw behind Rogue and Ranger.
- The sorcerer's Overwhelming Spell and the wizard's Overwhelming Energy are similar concepts; Spell is lvl 8 and ignores 10 of one energy type while Energy is lvl 14 ignores 10 of all energy types - these feel like lesser and greater version of the same idea, so why does the sorcerer only get the lesser and the wizard only the greater?

In a past livestream, Mark mentioned that the solution to many class-locked feat concerns might not be to unlock the feats but provide different but related kinds of feats as befits each class's approach to a fighting/skill/spell style.
E.g., some of the early ranger's ranged feats are oriented towards Hunted targets rather than general targets, and Mark mentioned a rogue's version of TWF might be more speed/finesse-oriented than the fighter's power approach.
We found interesting example of this design mindset in comparing the barbarian's Knockback, the fighter's Brutish Shove, and the monk's Knockback Strike.

The fighter's ability is the most complex of the three, allowing either a Shove or an unavoidable flat-footed condition, while requiring a two-handed weapon and a Press attack, and comes on-line earliest at lvl 2, with an improved version at lvl 4. But it is a form of moving the target in conjunction with damage.
The monk's is less complex, allowing an athletics check for a shove (potential for greater distance) on a successful unarmed attack, but it does require two actions (also not sure if it actually deals damage). However, it doesn't arrive until lvl 10, with a greater version at lvl 12 for increase shove distance.
The barbarian's is least complex, requiring a single action after a successful strike (note the similar but different requirements between the monk and barbarian; the latter is effectively a two action maneuver, but written with a requirement rather than combination of actions) , and Shoving the target as though with a successful Athletics test (no chance for critical Shove distance). It also doesn't arrive until lvl 10, with a greater version at lvl 14 which allows for an Athletics roll and the possibility of a combined Trip attempt
Each of these make thematic sense with what the different classes are trying to achieve (battlefield control, damage, etc..) and while some of the language could be unified, we're looking forward to seeing how they feel in play later on in the playtest.

Attack rolls with spells and spell rolls are different things. My group had the same confusion, since spell rolls are pretty rare (only certain spells use them)
However, the proficiency modifier, per the line on 197, is the same for both, so casters are equally U/T/E/M/L with attack rolls for spells as they are with spell rolls.

1) Layout: This is just where things are located, how they're referenced & organised.
I agree with the majority; it's proper rough right now.
Location of powers, organisation of feats, lack of feat effect summary in the feat summary table.
I'm not really worried about this at all. It's a playtest document, with all the problems I expect. I'm confident Paizo know how to organise a rulebook come the final.

This bit actually has me the most concerned - some of the changes seem easy enough to make, but I'm not sure how we get a guarantee that they'll change in the way that many of us might want them to. (after all, I'm not sure how to determine which layout changes were oversight and which were intentional)

- Went looking for how Poison DC's worked, and how a PC progress along the stages, what onset periods were, etc..
- Looked under 'Poisons' in the index.

'Poisons' only leads to a list of poisons, and a paragraph which points to the actual rules for poison (afflictions) about 30 pages prior. Not super useful when flipping through pages hastily mid-game.

But is it worse than what we have now? Now they roll perception, and when after rolling poorly you tell them they saw nothing, they knoww you're b#%@%*@#ting. Then they get stabbed by "Surprise Assassin."

Wanting the system to be both participative AND a true surprise is... almost unfair. Either you take it upon yourself to roll for them and note it down, or they participate in the game and do as if their PCs saw nothing (while squinting suspiciously at your notes, probably), and that's true for both PF systems.

It depends on circumstances. There's little to no reason for my players to be (more) suspicious of anything if they roll poorly on a check that either they specifically asked to roll, or I called for when they entered a room, for the purpose of determining how much detail to give. Additionally, it doesn't have to be a terrible rolls to miss an ambushing opponent; a Seek result of 15 looks fine, but could still be inadequate to beat the Stealth DC.

I believe it's probable that the PF2 system pretends for that initial perception vs stealth TO ALSO be the initiative rol (unless it's a very long, complex sneak that requires more rolls), but I'm not 100% certain. In either case, rolling initiative means the ooze must have done some aggresive movement, and that it lost means it just wasn't fast enough. "As you enter the room, you see nothing, but as you turn your head to say something you suddenly see something rushing towards you! What do you do?" If the ooze was just laying there unthreatingly, inmobile and uninterested the initiative roll was unnecesary. Or they're just murderhobos, which is also possible. It happens.

The question is how much aggressive movement counts as clearly aggressive movement vs what actually counts as an action. Were the ooze to go from stationary to rushing, that's a Stride. If a stationary gargoyle suddenly raises it's axe, that's an aggressive non-action. (Mind, I certainly have no interest in determining granularly how well the characters can interpret the hints/non-actions of any given creature type)

I am struggling to work out how to use Encounter and Exploration Mode at the table.

Originally, I thought Exploration Mode was for overland travel and such but the description specifically says "you could be [...] delving in a dungeon in search of danger and treasure."

An example of one time I think it worked well:
After the fight with the Sewer Ooze, I went around the table and asked everyone what tactic they are planning to use during the exploration of the Ossuray. I then assigned each of them an Exploration Tactic from the list that best fitted their descriptions. I then narrated the transition through the tunnel from the first area to the second area and then asked them to roll Initiative (with those who used the Sneaking tactic using Stealth), placed them near the entrance of the room and we were back in Encounter Mode.

I have had the same confusion so far, especially as it applied to such a small dungeon as in Lost Star. Counter to your example of it working well for the first transition, it was after the Ooze fight that it struck me how odd Exploration Mode can be.

PC is being sneak upon: The enemy rolls vs the PC's passive perception EXCEPT if the tactic is 'paying attention' (searching?), in which case maybe the GM ought to roll for the PC's active perception if thy want to keep the suspense. If the enemy fails, the PC 'feels something' but don't know where or what (basically, the enemy LOST initiative), they have to Seek. If the enemy critfails, the PCs see the enemy. If the enemy succeeds, they go first, becoming Sensed as they attack.

Do creatures that were already hiding somewhere get passive or active stealth vs active or passive perception, for example in case of the ooze in Part 1? Hmm. I would have to read sneaking again.

Anyway, in case of multiple people, the ambushed all roll either active perception or passive, depending on what they were doing, while the ambushers roll either passive or active stealth. All this is either rolled secretly for suspense, or open if your players can avoid metagaming. All these results tell you who saw/felt what first.

I don't know if I like the idea of not only rolling my players' initiative for them, but also rolling it in secret.(There's a Dork Tower strip on that topic somewhere) Either way, indicating that they 'feel something' would be a sure of indicating that they're in for combat sooner or later, and while some groups might be able to avoid metagaming that at all, with my group at least it's pretty unlikely.

My group and I reference the index frequently

-trying to search for what spell rolls are
-Found 'spells, roll & DC's', which lead to a table but didn't actually explain anything about what spell rolls are or how to use them (eventually found a little more info in the Wizard class section)

-Trying to find attack roll breakdowns for ranged and melee
-Looked under 'attack', 'melee', 'ranged', before remembering that they're called Strikes; looked under Strike which lead to the Strike paragraph which pointed to another page with the info I needed

I would asume the fact that they went first in initiative means they noticed something with their perception vs the (hypotetical) ninja. Basically they got 'a bad feeling', I guess. Doesn't mean they know exactly where you are or anything, they still have to find you.

If your Stealth's high enough, and you have patience, you could even recreate the classic "it was probably nothing" Skyrim experience, I suppose.

That's the best way I've heard of describing it, even though I'm not sure I like that being how a lot of combats are going to go.

Multiple times my players have walked into a room and either actively Sought or were asked to make Perception checks for something lurking that wasn't intending on attacking immediately, or that was out of line of sight due to darkness or cover. The dice were not in their favor and the locations appeared to them to be nonthreatening.
So as soon as they move to a spot where the enemy launches an attack, it appears I have two choices:

1. The most reasonable might be to assume that the foe was Readying an action, which would mean that they could get a single action off as a reaction to a PC walking into the right place, and then I call for initiative to determine where everyone else falls in order

2. If the creature was not readying, and goes to take an action which would start encounter mode, but rolls poorly for initiative, the the PC's hear the 'Glass Breaks', but would be unable to to actually do much for their, since the foe hasn't actually done anything yet and is still not within any line of sight.

Good to see the insertion of which ability mod applies to spell attacks. My group spent half an hour at last night's session trying to figure out where we were missing it and if we were supposed to infer it.

Also, why not just ditch 'versatile' as a trait and list the weapon damage type as s/p? Are there that many encounters where it matters?

Interesting.

We are constantly trying to strive and find a balance in the early parts of a game rulebook to provide just enough information to get started, without drowning you in too many details. We want you to be able to make informed decisions, but you do not need to know every interaction before doing so. This helps lower the barrier to entry.

Do you feel that the page references made it seem like you needed to read more? We added them as a courtesy for those who were curious.

While pages 7-10 do a decent job of explaining much of the basics, when combined with the rest of the 'overview' portion of the book, it feels like a lot of information gets repeated in the same balanced format, so it's a lot of reading for no or minimal new information.

Interestingly, there is some vital information in thus section which is only in this section and should perhaps be elsewhere as well, such as how to calculate to-hit bonuses.

I'm not a new player, so I look for a lot of specific information, which made the page references kinda frustrating. Especially when multiple page jumps can be involved, like a line about traits on page 8 referring me to page 10 for more info, which then points me to page 414 for a list.

When it comes to opposed checks or checks dealing with NPC, setting level isn't too difficult. However, even in such cases, I have to wonder how long it will take to memorize parts of the 'level = DC' table, otherwise I'll constantly be doing a double reference to figure out/remember what DC something should be.
But more static DC's are weird for me to understand as a function of level - while the DC will be increasing insofar as the party is encountering more difficult environments, trying to assign a level to something like a waterfall or tree branches or bookshelves or the Cliffs of Insanity feels like it takes a lot more understanding of what I want to be accomplish-able at certain levels rather than simply upping a DC, especially when the idea of level is often based off of a 'base' action and then scaled in difficulty, rather than increased in level. This will also be impact by how well I know other comparable levels and the DC's that those correlate to - so even if I remember that climbing a cliff is a level 2 challenge, and I remember that that default to a high difficulty DC of 15 - are the cliffs of insanity one difficulty higher? two? Would they be the same base level? And how does a cliff compare to walls of various type, level-wise? It feels very easy to over- or under-shoot, and subject to varying opinions by DM's with different experiences/expectations.

Is there even a clarification on what kind of action it is to reduce the check to 15? Does trying to wash off acid or remove flames provoke reactions? Is it a single action or an activity? Does it require a check?

I've read a lot of them. This is consensus "Best practice" I have come to think they should employ:
-------------
All ancestor, class, and skill feats should be listed with the ancestor, class, or skill. No flipping around. In ancestories, heritage feats should be listed separately from other ancestor feats.

All class powers, that aren't spells, should be in a section called powers. Or listed with the class.

Spells (and powers) should be listed by level, then name alphabetically. Uncommon and rare should be text (and Paizo already said they would not use color again). All the traits for an object should just be line of text in the listing, not the running list of text in a weird sidebar box. And among the traits should be the spell lists the spell can be found within.

Seconded. I also miss the arcane spells being split out by school in spell list; if I'm a specialist, I'd like to know which spells I can use for my bonus(es) or thematic without having to guess from the name or finding the spell description.

Part of the fix is easy - allow rolls where there is otherwise the static base of 10, for non-passive type rolls/checks. I've never found this to be much a slow-down on combat. However, unless you have mechanics which specifically impact the die roll itself (like rolling again and taking the higher), the modifiers are the same, so the character isn't really showing off any more than under the static system. But rolling does feel more invested.

As for counter attacks or maneuvers on great success, there's the Dueling Riposte fighter feat, which has a similar mechanic (make an attack when an opponent critically fails an attack). Unfortunately, it's just for fighters and not accessible until level 8, and only allows Strike or Disarm, and can only be used when another specific ability was used earlier.

I'll most likely be doing a few threads over the next couple weeks to talk about the entire system as a whole, but as I skim through the pages to find something I want to discuss, all I keep finding is more and more reasons to be skeptical of this release. (Or excited to really get to work on solving some issues I see, optimism notwithstanding)

Classes
Yuuuuuck. For starters, why are there class symbols? Ranger looks like it should be druid and I have no idea what the sorcerer is supposed to mean. Nix these. Also the repetitiveness cannot be complained about enough, most of the class build-ups have to be sifted through literally the same words over and over again explaining how character progression works. The table does fine, though I think the table should intentionally not include the progressions that are parallel to all characters, I'm fine with dead trees, but not excessive dead trees.

I think the devs are generally in the mindset of flexibility and openness when it comes to changes, so I'm still in the 'excited to really get to work on solving issues' mood.

I agree about the repetitiveness of the information given the class tables. There's a lot more base, general stuff that all classes get compared to prior editions, but I'd still like to see all of that in a general table at the beginning of the classes chapter, and leave the class table for class specific items. As it is, the tables look way too crowded.

And the class symbols confuse me as well; I don't think they're used anywhere else in the book? What's the point of them?

I posted this in the update thread:

While I still don't have a good idea of how long it's going to take, fulfillment has been speeding up; they're quickly approaching 15 percent shipped.

I don't have a good way at this time to look at orders in aggregate, but I can manually examine individual orders once they've shipped. Just to give you some idea of the timelines, I looked at 5 US and 5 international orders that shipped in the last few hours. All 5 of the US orders have expected delivery on August 3. International is (unsurprisingly) much more variable:

Destination: Japan. Expected delivery: August 7.
Destination: Italy. Expected delivery: August 3.
Destination: British Columbia. Expected delivery: August 8.
Destination: New Zealand. Expected delivery: August 13.
Destination: Sweden. Expected delivery: August 7.

Thanks a ton for keeping us apprised, Vic!

And one example i always bring to table is the Cave troll fight:

An advanced troll... lets say Level 10... Gimli and Legolas are around that level, Aragorn a little above, but with focus on skills, so fighting around the level of Gimli and Legolas, and Gandalf is far higher level, but since he is swordfighting/meleeing, he is around the same bonus as everyone else as a wizard.

Nah, none of the fellowship are above 6th level at best. (Gandalf is an exception since he's technically an outsider)

I dont foresee having fun trying to do a very good blacksmith in a system where total level matter more than choices.

Fortunately, PF2 aims to not be that kind of system. A 15th level untrained (or even trained) character simply cannot achieve the same quality or complexity of items that a 3rd level expert blacksmith could achieve. The higher number means very little if you don't have the training to go with it.

Aramar wrote:

Ultimatecalibur wrote:

Aramar wrote:

If I'm reading things correctly, this also means that Trained Assurance only applies to 3 possible tasks; level 0 trivial and low, and level 1 trivial.

Characters are less likely to have Assurance in skills they are only trained in. Expert, Master and Legendary benefits tells more.

If the chart is extended following the same pattern:

• Experts with Assurance will never fail Trivial tasks below level 7.
  
• Masters with Assurance will auto-crit level 1 Trivial tasks and never fail a Trivial task before level 12.
  
• Legends with Assurance will auto-crit level 11 Trivial tasks and never fail a trivial task under level 22
  

I agree completely that the higher levels Assurance are much more impressive.

I was only thinking that Trained Assurance itself seemed lackluster, and even more so if it happens to be a pre-req for any higher assurance levels.

Buy it once, and it autoscales as you increase your skill rank!

Oh thank goodness. I don't know if I missed that tidbit before, but thank you for saying it.

Aramar wrote:

If I'm reading things correctly, this also means that Trained Assurance only applies to 3 possible tasks; level 0 trivial and low, and level 1 trivial.

Characters are less likely to have Assurance in skills they are only trained in. Expert, Master and Legendary benefits tells more.

If the chart is extended following the same pattern:

• Experts with Assurance will never fail Trivial tasks below level 7.
  
• Masters with Assurance will auto-crit level 1 Trivial tasks and never fail a Trivial task before level 12.
  
• Legends with Assurance will auto-crit level 11 Trivial tasks and never fail a trivial task under level 22
  

I agree completely that the higher levels Assurance are much more impressive.

For example: I can't tell what Paizo thinks a task being "trivial" means, and it doesn't jive at all with my own personal definition. A 1st level trivial task in this setup is failed by a trained specialist of the same level (+4) 25% of the time, and an average attempt from an untrained character (-2) fails 55% of the time. This is almost certainly going to translate to comedy of errors gameplay at the table, with party members regularly failing the easiest possible tasks the system defines.

If I'm reading things correctly, this also means that Trained Assurance only applies to 3 possible tasks; level 0 trivial and low, and level 1 trivial.

I'm planning on running Doomsday Dawn, largely because I don't know the scope and/or particulars of time and mechanical focus that paizo is looking for out of the playtest.

I'm intrigued to see more of what kinds of tasks/skill uses are given what level.

Castilliano wrote:

What if PCs want to jam the pit door to walk across?

The lid wasn't built to support their weight, so they would still fall, though it would probably break the lid at that point and leave it exposed like if they had removed it.

What about the weight of thier familiar? Or other potential light/tiny companions?

While it's on my mind, I would note that I haven't ever actually encountered anyone, certainly not a player, who hates abundant magic items except in a specifically low magic setting. What we hate is the mandatory boring items, the big 6 et all, that break the game's math if you don't have them. So chopping down the Christmas Tree doesn't actually strike me as a good goal in and of itself. Just give us /interesting/ items, items that /do stuff/ instead of being just a bunch of numerical bonuses.

If we still end up with a bunch of bonus items outside weapons and armor, and if any of them start being considered mandatory, then this whole exercise is a failure.

I second this to an extent - even when there are interesting items, if there remain any items (of the number-booster variety) that are more or less mandatory, it forces the choice between having an interesting item and actually being able to hit target numbers. Overall the tighter math and other item previews make this seem less likely, but done incorrectly, i would have to worry about both my gold and my resonance going to things that let me do interesting things or things that actually let me affect the bad guys.

On the discussion of staves and wands - if staves were to keep charges, would it be too weird to call those charges Resonance Points as well? It would still be bookkeeping, I understand, but would making the names the same be more or less confusing?
That said, you can count me in for removing the charges from staves - I like how they've been given extra effects, and it would be good to build on that. Also, let some of the staves in the CRB not be actual staves, but other types of tools or weapons.
Also in favor of revamping wands to either not exist or not have charges.

I am mostly upset that the archetype and prestige class feats don't have ALL the prerequisites located in a single uniform location. If you don't want players to take a specific archetype feat before a certain level, put in the prerequisite line. Don't sneak it in at the upper right hand corner ambiguously.

All feats have their level requirement in the same place, the upper right hand corner, since I imagine that will be one of the key ways they are organized.

Blog wrote:

Boarding Action is one of those feats that nearly every pirate can be expected to have

That's three feats deep. If you're expecting most pirates to have it, then they're level eight before they can think about the Sea Legs chain. I realize pirate is niche, but I'm hoping that most archetypes don't have too many chains of two feats plus the starter.

Really, a lot of the pirate stuff has me kind of nervous. The opener feat seems pretty weak on anybody not benefitting from the weapon proficiencies. It's pretty much only the balance feature at that point, because even in a pirate game, I'm not expecting the GM to tip the ship outside of a storm.

Agreed on the first part - and not only is it three feats deep with a minimum level requirement of 6, but it would presumably mean an example pirate wouldn't have taken any of the other feats from the same archetype, and that pirates who took any of the feats couldn't have boarding action. I don't know what kind of pirates the Blog is expecting, but they're mighty fearsome.

As to the second part, it can also benefit PC's in providing a Signature skill. No word yet on what a duplicated Signature skill would provide, or if NPC pirates would even benefit from having one.

Since we got a glimpse of some conditions have simple 'Frightened 1, frightened 2, etc..', I've been a huge fan of representing them this way, reducing the confusion of different names for similar/related effects, and allowing for minimizing or enlarging the effects (for homebrew, mostly) without having think of new names or specific rules.
As has been mentioned by others, I'm surprised/disappointed that all the mental scores are lumped under one condition.
And I'm mildly concerned about the potential for numerous details/exceptions based on a condition's source that could cause game confusion or unneeded complexity, but I'll have to wait to see the beta for that for how comprehensible it all is.

We get Skill Ranks every level. We get Skill Feats every Even level. We get Class Feats every odd level. And there's Ancestry and General Feats mixed in there as well but I think it's every five levels? Without the actual rules before me, I'm going off of what blogs mentioned in passing weeks ago so I'm not 100% sure on that.

So what's this about another form of Skill Ranks? I do not remember reading about them.

We get skill ranks every odd level, not every level.

For the "you could do it PF1 crowd", Irori is the exception not the rule. As was Iomedae and Cayden.

So, now we no longer need to pass the Test of the Starstone to achieve godhood, we just have to advance to legendary. Got it.

As noted previously, I also haven't read a Pathfinder Tales that emulated scenarios closer to Beowulf than Conan.

And I think I've discovered the reason for the Gap in Starfinder. PF2 enabled all high-level adventurers to become demigods without an in-universe explanation and the resulting campaign-breaking paradox required Golarion to be retconned out of existence.

Booyah!

Additionally, there are other games out there that have non-nerfed spellcasters interacting with heroic, but mortal martials. I sometimes play those games, but PF is my preference, it has more content, and is easier to find players to game with. So, the "take your ball and go home stuff" isn't really convincing or compelling.

Seriously, if anyone is gaga about Legendary stuff, good on ya. Just because some of us aren't, doesn't make us "wrong" and you "right".

Assuming you're not opposed to a Legendary tier in general, what kind of abilities do you personally expect from such a tier for non-magical characters?

Would it be relevant to the swimming discussion (and particularly the ship discussion) that making a swim check is something that needs done every round, quite possible for a large number of rounds (esp if the ship leaves without you), vs climbing, which, while also made per round, might often be accomplished in significantly fewer rounds?
So being bad a swimming might be more a function of being unable to consistently make a passing check, rather than simply being unable to pass a single check.