Lucretia Daellum Adella

AvalonRellen's page

Organized Play Member. 42 posts (49 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


sherlock1701 wrote:
This seems like a pretty cool houserule.

Really, I figure it won't break the game too much, but it will just add a fun element. I think it also fits in universe pretty well and it works perfectly with the current +/- 10 crit rules that exist.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So, as it currently stands, a combatant is not flat footed at the start of combat before they have acted (with the exeption of some rogue interactions). I was thinking about the possibility of using the +/- 10 Critical system on initiative in the following way:

When your initiative result is 10 or greater than another creatures result during the first round of combat, they are considered flat footed to you for the first round of combat. Rolling a natural 20 makes all creatures flat footed to you for the first round of combat.

I liked the idea initially because:

1. All of the values (should be) written down and handy, so it doesn't require a lot of additional calculation.

2. It does a better job of describing in game when two people have vastly different initiatives. If you had just two combatants, one with a score of 21 and the other with a score of 5, the large gap in readiness doesn't show up in game despite the significant difference in how the two combatants rolled.

3. It makes getting a natural 20 awesome on initiative, and it rewards the combatant in a significant but not game breaking way.

Finally, I think that if multiple people were to get a natural 20, that they would not be flat footed to each other.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
AvalonRellen wrote:
As a separate note, playing the monk was awesome. I started off with longspear and shield in hand trying to keep the enemies away, before shifting into dragon stance (while still holding shield and spear) and starting to flurry kicks when I realized I should stop just protecting the cart we were on. I eventually dropped the spear to start tripping and using mountain stance, and the entire time I felt like an awesome monk shifting my strategy with plenty of options, even from level 1.

Never thought I'd see a monk with shield and spear. But I love the aesthetic. Could always throw the spear before following up with the badass kicks as well for maximum cinematic power.

On a separate note, what's the biggest/most unexpected difference for your white room monk vs actual play monk?

Ubertron_X wrote:

It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.

I think that might be intentional, since the fighter can acquire feats that give extra reactions just for shield block, or even a stance that always has your shield raised, essentially giving an extra action each turn.

As for the multiple reaction abilities but limited reactions, I'd like to think it adds depth and makes your choices matter more. Early on that shield block or attack of opportunity has more weight if you can pick one but not the other. If you can do both each turn, they become the cookie cutter, not a choice. Do you reduce damage taken there and then, or eat it to maybe attack someone running past you which might happen or not?

I think the biggest thing honestly had to be that a monk could hold weapons in both hands and still function when using the dragon style attacks. because it doesn't limit you to just one type of strike it means that there is a lot of possibility. honestly one of the other things I was thinking of was having a ranged weapon out and instead of dropping it just being able to kick and fight when someone comes close.

shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?

for the feats:

A veratile human starts with a general feat from his ancestry and an ancestry feat that he can pick up natural ambition for an extra level 1 feat.
plus his normal class feat, so 2 stances+shield block is doable at 1.

for the shield:
you're right, you can't hold a shield and a spear simultaneously.

I replied elsewhere but essentially in game I didn't have the spear readied anymore, and I eventually dropped it. But we rules in game that I could hold it when it wasn't positioned to be able to attack with anymore.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

We have not yet delved into maneuvres much, but I see two main points of concern, first you need a free hand for grab or trip (or use the appropriate weapon) and second most of those maneuvres have the attack trait and suffer MAP, or am I wrong?

I can speak to their usefulness while staying... Vague... About the fight. I found that trip EXCELS when you force the enemy to have to get up from prone. Any action a big-bad can use to attack is huge, so I was weaving trips in before attacks to functionally Slow it when it got up to not be a glaring target for the rest of the party. I thought it was balanced and tactical and most importantly: fun fun fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
AvalonRellen wrote:
Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!

Glad you're having fun with it, I'm looking forward to my first 2e session this Sunday.

Just one small detail (and it might be your build covers this), but I didn't think Monks started with Shield Block at all? Did you take the feat for it?

Shields work fine without Shield Block, the +2 AC is great. But they probably did grab it.

Correct, human monk, so I grabbed the shield block reaction as my general feat. Also I wasn't clear, but I was using the spear on top of the wagon, then stopped attacking with it and started kicking while holding it still, then dropped it to have a free hand. The initial wording was a bit confusing on my part.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
This is so great to hear. The theorycrafting seems to end with so many negative conclusions, so I was hoping to hear that people ended up enjoying the game as soon as they started actually playing, and I'm pleased to hear that this (at least anecdotally) is the case! :)

Honestly, even I spent a lot of time worrying about weapon choices and stances, but by the time the game started we were knee deep in danger at the start of a story and the only thing I thought was "thank gods I have a longspear (why is a monk using a longspear? That's not optimized!) to stab down from the top of this wagon where they can't reach me". Right off the bat I found that the game is so much more interesting than maximizing DPR (and that maximizing DRP isn't required, there seems to be more forgiving wiggle room since combat goes longer), and that's what you lose from just thinking about stuff in a white room. It took 2 rounds before I got off the wagon to change my tactics, but it felt natural and in character and fluid to evolve what you do as the combat changes.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Great stuff to hear. I’m particularly pleased to hear that swapping weapons actually made a meaningful difference. I think it’s going to take a long time for us PF1e converts to learn to use a wide variety of weapons. So much about PF1e was centered around investing in one fighting style only.

Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!

33 people marked this as a favorite.

I got the chance yesterday to finally play as a character in second edition. I wanted to note that we started playing Fall of Plaguestone, but the specific combat or story itself isn't really relevant to what I want to say, especially so the thread can stay spoiler free.

Some background, I have been feverishly trying to stay fully up to date on all things 2e, but I am playing in a game of people new to TTRPGs in general (with some familiarity in 5e).

We started playing (myself as a monk with Dragon and Mountain stances, the other two as a Crossbow Ace ranger and Animal Companion druid), and I have never had a better start to an RPG ever. The three action system clicked for everybody and we went through the entire encounter smoothly. I guess the best way to describe it is that we played for more rounds than I'm used to (compared to 1e), but the rounds themselves went much faster. This made combat feel quick and exciting and it felt like a lot happened!

Fighting was dynamic, and the frantic battle ended with the ranger at 1 HP, my monk barely standing with 2 HP after a shield block kept me from going down, and the druid in the back having a wellspring of 10 HP. Enemies did what felt like a fair amount of damage, and we had enough health at level 1 to take some hits and keep fighting.

As a separate note, playing the monk was awesome. I started off with longspear and shield in hand trying to keep the enemies away, before shifting into dragon stance (while still holding shield and spear) and starting to flurry kicks when I realized I should stop just protecting the cart we were on. I eventually dropped the spear to start tripping and using mountain stance, and the entire time I felt like an awesome monk shifting my strategy with plenty of options, even from level 1.

All the time I spent theory crafting and looking at optimal DPR went out the window when I ACTUALLY started playing Pathfinder. Absolutely tons of fun and I'm so excited to see where it goes from here.

Bandw2 wrote:

really, to balance it, you'd have to price the gun as a wand or balance the guns so you're expected to have more than one of them, like throwing knives.

at least if you want long reloads.

what i'd prefer is if we could get 18-19th century guns, you even have a flintlock RIFLE which uses rifling. I'd instead balance guns around reload 1 with a breech or bolt-action and then also make some other guns balanced around having magazines that you load a bullet at a time(such as lever actions and pump actions).

I feel guns would feel a lot funner that way.

At the very least having multiple pistols would fit in with how they were used for a time. Going I to battle with 3 flintlocks would give you some oomf even if you didn't have time to reload.

What you say is fair. Ultimately I foresee that guns will go the way of 1e and have their damage and reload fall close to crossbows or other ranged weapons. There is still plenty of space to flesh out firearms with weapon traits (which is wonderful news), but what I have suggested certainly does break down when you imagine how it could be abused.

Anyways, I'd like to tweak it so I could use it in home games where I can keep a close eye on it, but otherwise I foresee max reload 1-2 guns in the future with low damage to prevent abuse in the system.

I still think the damage could be brought in line that it would be fine for somebody to use as an opener-- much as how somebody could save a wand or focus spell to start off combat. I think a long reload weapon could find it's niche perfectly when similar options are available for spells and abilities every combat. I'll do some homework to look at what blaster focus spells look like and use that to hone in on what damage the firearms could do to not sway combat so much.

MaxAstro wrote:

So the problem with this idea is spike damage.

Hitting for 1d10+40 and then having to spend three full rounds reloading might sound reasonable.

What you are instead going to see, though, is the Ranger (it will be a Ranger) opening each combat with 1d10+40+precision shot damage, then dropping their gun and pulling out a crossbow for the rest of the combat. The end result is that their combat DPR is the same as a crossbow ranger, plus one massive spike on their first shot that only cost them one extra action to switch weapons.

At 18th level, said Ranger is probably opening combat with Perfect Shot for something like 4d10+3d8+3d6+46 = 128 damage. Goddess help anyone they crit; they could easily take out 2/3rds of the health of an equal level monster in one attack.

So with the idea of balancing this spike damage, how much would the damage need to be lowered? Would it need to be closer to a blasting focus spell at that level? Additionally, a large spike of damage at the begining isn't necessarily bad, especially if the player does little to invest in reloading the weapon until after combat. It certainly feels more in line with a powerful opener.

However I concede that the reload and damage values could maybe trend downward slightly, but the key idea that the implementation I suggested is that they would need to have significantly more reload than a crossbow.

I apologize in advance for the enormous wall of text. There will be a brief TL;DR for firearms, as well as for the musketeer.

Foreword: One of the key ideas of this post involves a very different implementation of firearms, off of which everything is based. I ask that people take it at face value and consider what is being posted separately from how the gunslinger and firearms have been implemented in 1e. There are other threads discussing how firearms could be implemented elsewhere in the forums. Thanks :)

Early Firearms TL;DR: In order to make guns unique from other weapons, they could be designed to be used in a manner that is similar to focus spells rather than normal ranged weapons--essentially, longer reload and much higher damage could allow somebody to save their weapons for a pivotal moment in combat, or they could spend time to reload to prepare to deliver another devastating volley.

Musketeer TL;DR: Taking cues from the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler, the Musketeer would be a class that would allow a player to specialize in firearms and melee combat. Depending on the Musketeers' Creed, you could seek to perfect sharpshooting with powerful rifles, going into combat with pistol and sword, or balancing the two by using rifles as an opener before charging into combat and engaging the enemy in melee. They would be balanced around the incredible damage of firearms, turning the tide of combat with powerful attacks.

And now for the big post:

The reality of firearms-- the implementation of firearms into the game must not break the math or assumed balance of the game. Because of this, there will have to be elements on firearms that are added or taken away so that they feel unique but are not JUST an inherently better weapon (firearms are one of the areas where it is easiest to imagine feature/power creep). To bound the ability of firearms, let’s start with two ridiculous extremes: modern day firearms and the very first crudely developed gunpowder weapons. In a world with swords and magic, slinging an automatic weapon that is extremely precise and deadly would be silly, and would exist entirely out of line with the rest of the P2e experience. Similarly, it would not be enjoyable to have a firearm that is wildly inaccurate and takes over a minute to reload (or longer than 10 full rounds of combat, for in game terms). I am bounding the rest of this post within the scope of firearms that could exist in a world of swords and magic without breaking the game.

So, with these two bounds in mind, firearms would need to be balanced in this space. I do not know the math behind the expected damage targets for each class and combat style, but it is safe to assume that there is some sort of expected Damage per Round (DPR) range at a given level. This can be accomplished by having many smaller attacks or fewer large attacks hitting the target. Based on this principle, the faster you can *successfully* attack with a weapon, the less damage it can do for the purposes of game balance--this is an immutable fact, because deviating from this concept would make one weapon choice clearly superior and would negate many different weapon options. Different weapons will excel in different spaces (something that weapon traits with help a lot), but at the end of the day new weapons cannot be vastly superior in concept and execution.


Assuming now that we implement firearms with high reload, we can map their damage to this expected DPR. For the purposes of balance, a quick firing firearm would need to do less damage, but a firearm with a long reload could be allowed to do greater damage. This balance can work in favor of firearms -- a unique implementation would trade-off a larger delay between successful hits for significantly higher damage on a hit. A non unique implementation would give firearms a short reload time, which would in turn bring them into the same DPR range as current martial and exotic ranged weapons with regards to DPR from *successful* hits-- this would wholly negate the unique space that a firearm could build into.

If we intend to map the performance of early firearms, they would likely require a few rounds to reload. Speaking purely from a design perspective, this means that they could be allowed to deliver high damage, which also plays into the notion that a firearm is a unique and different tool of destruction than other ranged weapons


Now we see a weapon that shares some design analogues with Focus Spells, which are used infrequently in a given combat but have the ability to be used all day long. Without putting artificial limits on the use of firearms, they could be used as a powerful opener in a fight, or saved for a crucial moment to turn the tide of battle. A high reload leaves space for a specialist class to gain the ability to shorten the time between shots, carving out a unique space for a PC that wanted to feel like a lethal sniper or a daring duelist.

This design leaves several paths for improvement when designing a class, where the player can decide between preparing another deadly volley or pressing the gap and continuing the fight in melee while their foes are reeling. To speak in regards to focus spells, the developers have stated that the power of said spells would need to be reduced significantly if they were able to be used much more frequently. Having access to an excess of Focus Points would mean that they would have to be realigned with the expected DPR of a Players Character. It is for this reason that I see a clear analogue of successful implementation of Firearms. Excessive usage per round would force them to move in line with existing weapons.


With everything discussed above, we can now move on to build an example weapon:

Flintlock Pistol: 1d6 piercing, range 20, Reload 4, Shortarm
Flintlock Rifle: 1d10 piercing, range 50, Reload 10, Longarm

Lead shot: Projectile 15
Steel shot: Puncturing Projectile 10
Lead Hollow shot: Shattering Projectile 20

[/b]Shortarm[/b]: This firearm deals additional damage equal to the loaded ammos Projectile value
Longarm: This firearm deals additional damage equal to twice the loaded ammos Projectile value

Projectile: Projectile always includes a value. If the firearms normal damage penetrates Resistances and Hardness, they take additional damage equal to ammos Projectile value. Projectile damage is always doubled on a Critical Hit.

Puncturing Projectile: As Projectile, but the ammunition deals its Projectile damage after accounting for Resistances and Hardness. (If the original projectile damage would be applied through Resistances or Hardness, these instances of Projectile damage stack and the projectile damage would be applied twice).

Shattering Projectile: As Projectile, but the ammos Projectile damage is also reduced by double the amount of any Resistances and Hardness.


The values above are an example intended to show a possible pistol and ammo combination, and don’t fall in line with what the DPR might need to be in order to balance a weapon with such a reload time. Different types of ammo could be made available (through rarity), and these types of ammo could be used to modify the way the pistol interacts with the target. Hollow shot can be devastating to unprotected targets, while puncturing shot would be a way to guarantee damage to a heavily armored target.


The Musketeer

Key Ability: Strength, Dexterity, or Charisma
Hit Points: 10 plus your Constitution modifier

Initial Proficiencies:
Perception: Expert in Perception
Trained in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will
Trained in Athletics or Acrobatics, and 3 + INT other skills
Trained in Simple and Martial weapons
Trained in Advanced Firearms
Trained in Light & Medium Armor & Unarmored
Trained in Musketeer class DC
Class Features:

Musketeers Creed: A Musketeer is guided by a code of conduct or set of principles. Your creed may guide you towards honorable acts in the name of a deity or ruler, or it may guide you towards justifying the requisition of others’ wealth and goods in the name of the greater good. The Musketeers creeds in this book are as follows:

Sharpshooter-- A single well placed shot can be deadly, and using a rifle in the heat of battle can lay low even the most powerful foes. A Sharpshooter is a musketeer that has dedicated themselves to perfecting powerful well-placed rifle shots to turn the tides of battle, falling back on the use of gunpowder pistols to defend themselves should they be attacked before reloading their rifle. When you pick this class path, you gain the Focused Reload ability, which allows you to reload a gunpowder weapon effectively while in the heat of battle. During your turn, you can choose to have any action without the manipulate trait to gain the manipulate trait and count towards an action of Reload as you ready a Firearm while performing other tasks.

Frantic Reload: by spending a focus point, you kneel down and put all of your focus into reloading your weapon. As long as you do not take any actions other than reload and do not receive damage, each action spent counts as Reload 2 until your weapon is reloaded or you interrupt your reload.


Picaroon-- Powder and Steel reinforce a brazen attitude-- and when words fail a Picaroon confidently goes toe to toe with pistol and sword as they hurl insults and harry their enemies. When you pick this Musketeer creed, you gain the Finale Fatale ability, which allows you to use a pistol to attempt to finish off an enemy after throwing them off balance in combat. As an action after you critically succeed at a Disarm, Trip, Demoralize, or Grapple combat maneuver, you may draw and Strike with a pistol or one-handed agile weapon with no MAP.

Effortless Finale: by spending a focus point, you may instead perform the Finale Fatale ability when you succeed on a combat maneuver (as described above).


Fusilier-- Some musketeers use their firearms as a powerful opener, before stowing their gunpowder weapons and pressing the attack on any foes sent reeling from their assault. When you choose the Fusilier creed, you gain the Opening Salvo ability, which allows you to charge into combat with devastating effect. (2 actions) You fire a readied gunpowder weapon, after which you Stride at least 10 feet up to your speed and make a melee Strike against the same creature. If your first Strike hits, your opponent is considered flat footed to you until the end of your turn. You may stow the firearm used to make the first attack while you move while drawing another weapon used to make the second attack, or you may use a Bayonet on a rifle to make the second attack.

Reeling Charge: [1 action] by spending a focus point, you may make a Trip or Disarm Combat Maneuver as part of the Strike. You do not increase your MAP for the Maneuver and Strike until after both have resolved. .

___________________________________________________________________________ _
Panache & Bravado-- At level 1 you start off with 1 Focus point. While you have more than one focus point a Musketeer can enter various stances that give them a benefit called Panache. A Musketeer will remain in this stance until they use a Focus point to fully utilize their Panache, or until they end their turn while having no more focus points. Many instances of a Musketeers Panache have a Bravado, which provides additional benefits when the Musketeer performs an exceptional task.

Level 5: You become an Expert with Advanced Firearms, and reduce their Reload by 2
Level 13: You become a Master with Advanced Firearms and reduce their Reload by 4
Level 19: You become Legendary with Advanced Firearms, and reduce their Reload by 8

Musketeer Feats
___________________________________________________________________________ _
The following are just some examples of feats for the Musketeer:

En Garde:
[Musketeer] [Stance] [Panache] [1 Action]
Requirements: You are holding a 1H melee weapon
Panache: While you have one focus point, one melee weapon you are holding gains the parry trait, and any weapon with the parry trait receives an additional +1 circumstance bonus to parry. While you remain in this stance and retain a focus point you gain the following reaction at the cost of 1 focus point:

Dueling Riposte: After an attacking creature has rolled to Strike you but before you take damage, Make a disarm combat maneuver check against the attack results’ DC. The result of the disarm maneuver is instead replaced with the following: Critical success, you negate the attack and you may choose to Strike, Disarm, or Trip the foe, treating the result of the Strike, Disarm or Trip check as 1 degree of success higher. Success, you half the damage from the attack, and may perform a Strike action against the foe. Failure, you take half damage from the attack.
Bravado: If your counterattack kills the enemy, you regain one focus point.

Taunting Flourish:
[Musketeer] [Flourish] [Mental] [2 Actions]
You taunt an enemy before lunging. You may attempt to Demoralize one enemy in within your movement range. If you succeed at Demoralizing them, you may then move up to your speed and Strike them. If the enemy moves to a square you no longer threaten before the start of your next turn you may attempt to Demoralize them again as a free action and their frightened condition cannot be reduced until the start of your next turn.

Steadied Shot:
[Musketeer] [2 Actions]
Preparing to fire, you brace your weapon and control your breathing while aiming carefully. If the target is not concealed by cover they are considered flat footed for this Strike. If the target is benefiting from cover this Strike ignores the benefits of cover.

Duelists Dance:
[Musketeer] [Stance] [Panache]
While in this stance, you effortlessly maneuver through combat, allowing no escape.
Panache: While you have at least 1 focus point, you may designate a target in which to begin a deadly dance with. While in this stance, whenever the designated target performs the Step action you may Step with them as a free action. While you remain in this stance and retain a focus point you gain the following reaction at the cost of 1 focus point:
Press the Advantage: If the foe designated by Duelists Dance Strides within your reach, they are flat footed to you until the end of their turn and you make Strike as they attempt to leave the threatened area.

Level-headed Parlay:
[Musketeer] [Stance][Mental] [Panache] [1 Action]
Attempt a grapple on a foe as a part of this action. When you grapple a foe while wielding a pistol in one hand with the other hand free, you gain the following Panache: You gain a +2 morale bonus to your diplomacy and intimidate, and the grappled opponent receives this same penalty when trying to escape the grapple. You may spend 1 focus point to make either a diplomacy or intimidate check against all foes within 30 feet that are allied to the grappled foe. Any attempts to escape the grapple gain the following failure and critical failure conditions: Failure: The foe grappling you hits you with their pistol attack. Critical failure: the foe grappling you critically hits you with their pistol attack. During the start of your next turn and each turn after, if you continue to maintain the grapple you may make an attack against the creature AND treat it as one degree of success higher.


I hope that this provides adequate structure to think about how the Firearms and Musketeer class could be shaped into a playable 2e class. Even if it was only used for 'Variant Firearms', it is the type of class/weapons combination that I think could be powerful, fun, and balanced. I look forward to hearing what others think.

Blave wrote:

The answer to the second question is definitely yes. That's covered somewhere in the persistent damage rules. Probably the sidebar about having multiple types of persistent damage.

Found it:

CRB p. 621 wrote:
The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you’re dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once.

As for the first question, I can't remember reading anything about persistent damage stopping when you drop to 0 HP. And why would it?

So I'd say it keeps its effect, making going down with active persistent damage qutie dangerous indeed. At least your initiative is moved so your party has a whole round to do something about it :)

Edit: Just realized that the quote answers both of your questions so ignore my opinion and take my RAW answer instead, I guess?

Thank you for the thorough answer (with citations nonetheless)! The ruling makes sense and I'm very glad they compartmentalize the persistent damages. With this in mind I'm going to make sure to always try and keep an eye out for persistent damage on an ally that has low health.


I was hoping somebody would have a quick and simple answer to this question: Does persistent damage continue even when you drop to 0 hit points? From my understanding going unconscious with any type of damage over time would limit your survival dramatically. I would like to be clear that I have no issue with this, but if it's the case then I want to be noticably more aware if a teammate is about to go down while taking persistent damage.

As a second question (that might be nullified by an answer to the first): if you have multiple instances of persistent damage, do those instances of damage happen at the same time for the purposes of dying, or does each one pop off and move the dying track independently?

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Second Edition PDF downloaded, unzipped, and ready to read!!!!!!

Today is the day!!!!


WatersLethe wrote:

If we all got 100 tokens to vote on different aspects of guns, I would spend all 100 to make sure they don't have exceptional attack rules, and ensure that they resolve against normal AC.

The touch targeting from 1E was in large part responsible for the mess that guns became.

Guns aren't special against armor. They fire a smaller mass more quickly than other weapons, but let's recap:

* In the real world early guns were good against early armor, but armor improved to be able to deflect shots from early guns.

* This isn't the real world.

* Magical bows could fire arrows at the same speed as bullets through magic. Magically enhanced monks might throw punches at a similarly ludicrous speed. Why don't those ignore armor?

* Magic armor interacts with bullets in an unknown manner. Why should bullets not care about adamantine armor?

* An adventurer's armor isn't necessarily designed to protect against human weapons. It could be heavier and thicker to protect against trolls and dragons.

* Dodging bullets is more immersion breaking than armor blocking them (since real world armor exists that stops bullets from all different levels of gun technology)

Just let it go. Let guns fall in line. Let them target AC but get some set of other traits that makes them unique. Heck, make them straight up stronger but requiring a feat or GM approval through rarity. Just don't mess up armor math now that it's actually somewhat balanced.

You know, all of those are excellent points. I agree, have them fall in line with regular AC. In terms of a way to deal with armor, what do you think about the Penetrate idea I had suggested earlier? What I had suggested would essentially mean that if armor or some other resistance to the bullets initial damage (1d6 for a pistol let's say) blocks the damage die, the target does not take the Penetrate damage.

This would especially work to show shields or a character with armor specialization managing to have their armor stop the damage, preventing them from taking more.

A simple way to resolve it is have firearms work in the following way. You roll to attack, targeting the opponents reflex DC for a standard save. If the target is unaware of you or flat footed treat the attack as one degree of success better for the purposes of resolving the hit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For a given monk stance, roughly how many feats are there to further develop that stance? Can we expect more than 1 feat choice to supplement a given stance, which would allow us to use a stance in different ways?

Another thing I was thinking through was having firearms have a weapon trait that accomplishes what I was suggesting, for instance, a pistol could have Penetrate (X)

Flintlock pistol: 1d6 piercing, reload X (not what I want to focus on here), Range 20, Penetrate 10

Penetrate: When this weapon deals damage to an enemy, that enemy takes the additional penetrate damage. This damage is doubled on a critical hit. An enemy with resistance to piercing does not take the additional penetrate damage.

So, my thoughts on having this weapon trait would mean that there could be ways to mitigate the damage done by the weapon. Firing a pistol at a shield that blocks the damage (for example) would prevent the enemy behind the shield from taking the larger damage.

Seisho wrote:

Yeah, Multi-Round reload is bad, Multi action is one thing...

Also, considering the damage dice you would have to put a lot of stuff in there to make multi round reload worth it, becaust it can't be more dice

At the very least, I explicitly suggested a high static bonus to go with the *very long* reload time. If it hits, it does a lot no matter what, which I hope is an accurate stance for being hit by a bullet (I've never gotten the chance and I don't seek it out).

But yeah, I get it. That's why I noted that my position was very much against the grain from what has been discussed, I just wanted to broaden the conversation!

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Had a Ranger in our group that went heavy crossbow and Animal Companion. He singlehandedly did the most damage in our group with some good rolls, but 2-action reload alone makes the weapon seem niche enough to not just grab over the light one. Multi-round reload just sounds awful to me. I’d rather just make Alchemical Cartridges the standard ammunition.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. What I suggested in my earlier post was a contrary stance that is significantly different from how guns have been previously implemented in Pathfinder. My imagination for *long* reload times was mainly involving the balance between extreme damage and significant investment into preparing another shot. For all of the power behind a gunshot, I've never fully enjoyed a bullet doing similar damage to an arrow, so I would prefer to imagine a weapon that would deliver massive damage but require planning to reload when still in combat.

Granted, when discussing cartridges my suggestions entirely change. It wouldn't make sense for such a weapon to take so long to reload, so if firearms are implemented to be more advanced than the early firearms I'm suggesting, then they would have to be balanced much closer to that of exotic ranged weapons that currently exist (with the excellent weapon properties ideas that have been suggested in this thread).

Anyways, total aside: with my version of firearms I would prefer to collapse the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler together, make them a Musketeer that uses panache/grit, and have them focus on precise and powerful opening attacks with firearms before diving into combat with swords. This would bring together the two (very similar) classes, give them powerful opening damage and interesting combat choices when they sling their musket and move into melee.

Any class wholly built around full-time firearm use will have to live with weapons that won't accurately represent how powerful guns are in the setting (if they aren't balanced with long reload times like I suggested).

Sorry for the ramble, just my 20¢

To go against the grain a bit, I would like to offer my idea of implementing firearms:

First off, I am imagining only 'early' firearms for this purpose, so no cartridge pistols or rifles (somebody else can dream up how that would work).

What I am picturing is high-damage but slow to reload weapons, where they have a large damage bonus (10 for pistols, ~20-30 for rifles), BUT they take rounds to reload. This would work with real firearms where a single rifle would be good for an opening volley, but would require the user dedicate significant time to reload (something that would really be limited to specific situations). With this in mind, feel free to load up on three pistols while you ambush a group of mercenaries, unleash some devastating attacks on them, and then move in with a sword to finish them off.

Having high static damage would allow crits to feel POWERFUL when doubled, but I think it would be better for firearms to be very useful once, while requiring a reload out of combat.

To sum it up: pistols would be 1d6 +10, reload 6

Rifles 1d10 + 20, reload 15.

I know this is vastly different from what many people imagine, but I would want my guns to hit like a truck, totally unlike other ranged weapons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:

I think people need to play the new Alchemists a bit first before they can imagine concepts.

I'm more baffled by bard losing to monk of all classes! :O

As one of the people that threw in a monk character concept earlier in this thread, I definitely feel like monk will *flavorfully* enjoy the three action system the most. Personally it just seemed so easy to picture using actions to go between stances and deliver sweeping kicks into a flurry of attacks before disengaging.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Ancestry and Class Breakdown:


Alchemist: 0
Barbarian: 5
Bard: 14
Champion: 11
Cleric: 11
Druid: 4
Fighter: 10
Monk: 15
Ranger: 6
Rogue: 12
Sorcerer: 6
Wizard: 5


Dwarf: 4
Elf: 17
Gnome: 4
Goblin: 10
Halfling: 4
Human: 42

Half Orc: 6
Half Elf: 1
Lizardfolk: 2


Nine characters were listed without Ancestry, while one was listed without a Class, so these numbers should be off a tad. I may also have missed a character or two entirely.

Half Elf and Half Orc are not counted in the Human total.

I'm surprised by the lack of Alchemists.

Huh... The total lack of Alchemists IS interesting. I don't know if any other data points jumps out as an outlier (for instance, it makes sense that humans would be vastly more popular), but not a single alchemist in a (not enourmously rigorous but decently sized) survey is interesting indeed.

I guess that's it. Funny enough we got to 101 in 100 posts, with post 101 declaring victory.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really see the rarity system as a reward for when the party is deep in a dungeon. That "Christmas came early" feeling when the party finds a rare magical sword buried in the depths, or comes across a library and finds a scroll of an uncommon spell. The gated access helps control what is availible at the start of the adventure, but what that means is they can find new and interesting things that go beyond what they could hope to build their character around.

Related to 1e, imagine finding a dark and evil text that instructs the user on how to learn the spell Blood Money. That shouldn't be something that every bright-eyed wizard goes over in school, that should be a secret that has been waiting to be uncovered.

It also means the second Paizo prints a spell for an adventure, it doesn't suddenly become run-of-the-mill.

Oh, and to go even further, I could imagine a "Big book of Rewards!" that basically can be used to pull together all of the Uncommon+ material, as a tool for GMs to offer fun new things to players.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Assuming a 60% chance of hitting with his first attack, I just dont see how power attack is better than 2 normal strikes with -5 on the second strike. Given that, I'm confused why Kaliban would like Power Attack so much. He isnt dealing more damage with the same action economy. He's dealing, on average, the same.

Has the crit system fundamentally changed so much to change the calculations making power attack a good choice? Or is it assumed lots of enemies will have resistance 5 or greater with little chance for Kaliban to overcome it?

Brutish Strike is a but nicer. Although I'll be interested to see how well "effect on a miss" plays out with the community. This was one of the most lambasted features of 4th ed martial characters and I'm surprised to see Paizo has brought it back with PF2e.

It's nice to see Bravery actually does something worthwhile in this edition.

So one thing that can help shed light on the good niche for power attack: since the replaced 'open' with 'flourish', you can actually attack once first at a -0, then power attack at a -5, giving you a stronger attack and having a MUCH greater chance of hitting that two attacks at -5/-10.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

FTR, Mark confirmed on Discord that:

(1) shield proficiency is gone, everyone can use a shield by default;

(2) the shield block reaction is *not* available by default—access to the reaction is granted by a class feature (as we see the fighter gets at lvl 1) or by taking a general feat

So, to be clear, nobody is less capable of using a shield (for the benefits of helping your AC), but now the shield General Feat will instead give you the ability to perform the shield block?

Well, that sounds good to me. It essentially works the same for the purposes of how most people would be using a shield, but if you aren't able to block until you grab the feat at level 3 you can at least use a shield until then to help with your AC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Duluun, the pensive Dwarven monk acolyte. Meditating at the foot of a rockslide helped give him insight into the quick crushing attacks that can drop somebody in an instant.

Sorcerer multiclass at level 2, seeking to engage in spell combat to magically deliver deadly spells mixed in with a fast and deadly flurry of avalanche attacks. Add to that a sturdy shield and Duluun himself becomes as immovable and deadly as a mountain.

I imagine playing a champion could work very well. Ultimately, being solely defensive can make combat a little difficult, but being a combat medic using Lay on Hands and using a shield to defend allies could work very easily. Your milage may very

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited to have more of those "MY character helped this work out" moments, via the 'Follow the Expert' action. It is very easy to imagine a group feeling like they could accomplish something thanks to a specific player.

Things like a dexterous rogue setting a climbing route for the rest of the party, or a powerful fighter helping athletically hoist people over a wall to get into a private Villa, or even a sneaky ranger helping point out the safe places to step while sneaking through a forest.

There is now the possibility of having a concrete and meaningful way to play out all these situations, and I really like that. Mechanically, all you're doing is letting untrained people add their level to a check, but in game your character is giving the whole party the chance to succeed where they wouldn't stand a chance before. Moments like that are what deepens the connections between PCs at a table, and that makes the game worth playing.

I like to imagine that it will be a balance of diminishing returns. By offering ways to heal between combats or regain focus points, the party can have a partial refill of resources between encounters. As non-renewable resources are used, that could generally wind down the adventuring day.

Also interesting, some buffs that we have seen (like heroism) now last for 10 minutes, which let's you buff for several encounters if you move quickly, but the buff wouldn't persist through a 10 minute rest to refocus and heal.

I'm excited for a balance of choices for each party to make, a good healthy helping of choices can make the whole game feel more immersive.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you take the sorcerer dedication then retrain out of it, you just ran out of whatever specialness was in your blood and now you have normal blood.

But you can retrain back, hence you never lost the potential: the magic is still there, it just needs activated.

As to "ineligible", you're never 100% that. If I'm not mistaken, there are items that grant stat numbers like the belt of strength I think. You just have to put one on and you can retrain to gain it.

My point is, the magic is there for anyone to activate it: it isn't has or doesn't but activated or not. If it was there or not, it wouldn't be an option for everyone at 1st... but even the dwarf with an 8 cha can take it with no special requirements because everyone has the potential. ;)

This is a bit of an aside, but I don't know if you can say everybody has magic because they could get a level in sorcerer. It's a bit chicken and egg, since you're talking about what they *could* do, but something being possible on a system-requirement level doesn't equate to it being true for every character within the system of a game.

Although some storylines do touch on this, like Diablo 3 explaining how humans are a divine and demonic melange with a watered down essence of true power within their souls (and some manifesting this more powerfully than others). Anyways, sorry for the aside, just wanted to say that.

Well, that could certainly be a way to build a vexing dodger in the new edition. I like the idea of the 'Shadow of the Collossus' style combat being available to anybody that wanted to specialize, plus it fits comfortably with a lot of other cool abilities and feats that you could focus on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea, but to the developers credit they designed the background system to be ultimately flexible. They gave a snapshot of some options in the playtest but they made a framework that could be easily adapted, which is as follows:

You get two ability boosts

You get a skill feat

You get a profession/lore related to the flavor of your background.

Knowing this, I am not worried because I have no doubt that even if they do not introduce a certain background you could create it yourself. Expect an explanation of how this can be done, with examples, when 2e is released.

I think campaign related flavor backgrounds will be where we see a lot of interesting material surface. I think it will be an excellent way to start off feeling invested in the story.

Megistone wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

Turn 1:

Attack, Attack, Raise Shield

Turn 2:
Lower shield (free), Attack, Attack, Raise Shield

Exactly the same as now, except that Attack of Opportunity has an additional penalty.

I'm sure it's intended to work as it is now but with an option to keep the shield raised, eating the penalties but saving an action the next turn(s).

The idea is indeed to have it be able to work as it does now, but also give the chance to trade off to-hit for saving an action and maintaining the shield. With lowering the shield being a free action, you could continue to use the shield identically to how you use it now, but the proposed change would enable further choice when preparing to be hit.

Hello all,

With regards to the current implementation of Shield Block and Raising a Shield, I was thinking about the possibility of letting a shield stay raised after using an action to raise it, but have it affect your to-hit when attacking. Building on this, the same way that dropping a weapon is a free action, you could lower your shield for free in order to attack (or for whatever other reason).

So imagine that raising your shield still offers the bonus to AC, but now offers a matching penalty to land with an attack (maybe attributes like agile could mitigate this penalty?). This way, you are still using action economy effectively by raising your shield at the end of a turn, but there now exists an avenue for you to fight defensively in subsequent rounds if you are more focused on avoiding damage and less focused on hitting with your attacks.

Additionally, using the shield block reaction could reset the shield, requiring you to use an action to raise it again.

The short and sweet mechanics in TL:DR format are as follows:

--Action to raise shield.
--Free action to lower shield.
--Shield stays raised until lowered as a free action or using the shield block reaction.
--AC increased and to-hit decreased by equal amounts while shield is raised.

Tell me what you think!

Hello all,

I was reading another thread that was talking about how using an action each turn to raise the shield can be boring, along with the fact that it can be tiresome to announce it each turn. It got me thinking about the possibility of letting a shield stay raised after using an action to raise it, but have it affect your to-hit when attacking.

The same way that dropping a weapon is a free action, you could un-rause your shield for free in order to attack (or for whatever other reason).

So imagine that raising your shield still offers the bonus to AC, but now offers a matching penalty to land with an attack (maybe attributes like agile could mitigate this penalty?). This way, you are still using action economy effectively by raising your shield at the end of a turn, but there now exists an avenue for you to figure defensively and raise a shield as needed.

Additionally, using the shield block reaction could reset the shield, requiring you to use an action to raise it again.

The short and sweet mechanics in TL:DR format are as follows
Action to raise shield

Free action to lower shield

Shield stays raised until lowered as a free action or using the shield block reaction

AC increased and to-hit decreased by equal amounts while shield is raised

Tell me what you think!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Lizard is an excellent diplomacy related class.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that these changes are an Elf Step in the right direction! Ancestries feel pretty awesome now, and all I can think about is being a high-Con Dwarf Barbarian with an insane pool of health. Yay for making dwarves feel stout as heck.

Ediwir wrote:

So, I kinda posted this as an offhand, dismissive comment, and it sorta grew on me after someone pointed out it made more sense than I intended.

Allow Crafted items to use your Craft DC.

That's... pretty much it. It does not conflict with the current DCs as it's always equal or better, it does not add too much weight to the rules, and it rewards characters who spend time to do things. It allows alchemists and rogues to use poisons, rangers to use snares, thunderstones to exist, and items to remain consistent and valuable over time.

It could be a skill feat, but it just makes sense as is - if you are a better craftsman, you make better stuff.

Can it be a thing? Or at least get some consideration?

I hope that this post gets traction and noticed, because this is the kind of language and rules communication that is ideal and effective. In the fewest words possible, the message is clear and meaningful. I would hope this gets implemented, and frankly even if it doesn't this will be a house rule at my table with Second Edition releases.

To expand on the idea, it would be worth specifying that consumables use the DC, since it is possible to craft magic items and the like. Although that would certainly be powerful if magic items. Used the same DC, but it could be a whole big can of worms to start toying with every magical DC in the game.

Now all that remains is for us to begin the occult ritual to summon Jason B. to this thread.