AvalonRellen's page

All joking aside, I think that the book focusing on the Mwangi expanse is a great portent of what is to come. My actual guess is that we are going to get a world-guide book on the Mana Wastes (general Geb and Nex tomfoolery), alongside an AP that moves through that area. Like how Strength of Thousands is going to be an AP that has some buy-in (All users are there to learn magic, c'mon don't play against type and be a superstition barbarian), I think that the counterbalance will be a low magic (with technology like guns or clockwork stuff) AP across the Mana Wastes. It maps to the current style of release and it's a perfect way to flesh out an area people have begged for. And Strength of Thousands shows that they could release an AP that may be low magic in the future (since I am brazenly assuming SoT will be high-magic).

I have used my gift of Augury to see that the next book will be 'Magic of Secrets', a thrilling 268 page book detailing espionage and covert options for tense negotiations and high-society intrigue. It will include variant rules like "everybody in the party is secretly a vigilante but they think they are the only one and can't let the rest of the party know", as well as the totally-not-story-derailing "bards trying to seduce every person of import they come across". Magic of Secrets will launch alongside the surprise 2e conversion of War for the Crown.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I think the problem is that people want to hit someone they're on equal terms with at ~70%, while also not wanting to be hit at ~70%.

I guarantee that if a primary caster enemy of the same level as a player hit PCs at 70%, you'd hear no end of complaints.

I wonder what percentage of people prefer the near utter lack of danger of PF1 where PCs ran over things and DMs had to take hours to design encounters at higher level.

I also cynically wonder how many of those were GMs.

I'm pretty cynical it wasn't many.

Preach. I am a GM running 1e Tyrants Grasp, and now that the party is at level 11 it's a silly montage of them dumpstering any foes they come across, interspersed with horrifying near-death unfun one-shot mechanics. 1e is "fun", but honestly people that hold up 1e combat over 2e combat are likely NOT the GMs.

I have enjoyed being a 2e player, it's probably the best therapy I could ever have for 1.5 years of 1e GMing. 2e is built to last and I love it.

Calybos1 wrote:

Uhh, what? What the flying flumph is this? Spontaneous casters can... cast one of their spells using their spell slots, and choose to expend a charge from the staff at the same time. To no apparent effect. Because they get the exact same-level spell and spell effect, just as if they'd cast it without the staff.

So how is this helpful? You're still spending your spell slot, and you're getting nothing in return but lost charges from a staff that hasn't aided you. Why don't we run the AC and the heater with the windows down while we're at it? Please tell...

You're missing the part where you can cast any spell in the staff, regardless of level, by spending your spell slot of that level, but only one charge from the staff, rather than charges equal to the level of the spell.

So, a prepared caster using a staff with, say, fireball and three charges, could cast fireball from that staff once. Period.. A spontaneous caster could cast fireball up to three times, so long as they have the third-level spell slots. I'd guess thatspontaneous casters will want staves containing mostly spells that aren't in their repertoire, to expand that repertoire as much as possible.

I realize you are directing this towards somebody else, but this just made staves *click* and blew my mind. Wow the right stave on a Spon cater is amazing. That is a huge difference!

I am glad to hear there is a general interest for this type of thing. I would love to create a big book o' monsters that focuses on templates, and how to modify existing creatures using various themes. kudos @Castilliano, I think that having them grouped could work out mechanically and conceptually.

A cool example is how you can "Build a Zombie/Skeleton" in 2e, with lists of traits that they could have. For example, within an "Ooze-rot" theme you could offer a table of the following options to add on to a creature with the template:

Fledgling Ooze-rot template
* Level adjustment: -1
* Number changes (AC, modifiers and DC changes): -1
* Health adjustment: Down a level, according to chart
* Strike/ability damage adjustments: -2
* One Ooze-rot ability from the below table

Burgeoning Ooze-rot template
* Level adjustment: 0
* Number changes (AC, modifiers and DC changes): -2
* Health adjustment: None
* Strike/ability damage adjustments: -1
* Two Ooze-rot ability from the below table

Virulent Ooze-rot template
* Level adjustment: +2
* Number changes (AC, modifiers and DC changes): -2
* Health adjustment: Up a level, according to chart
* Strike/ability damage adjustments:
* Two Ooze-rot ability from the below table plus Virulent Ooze
-- Virulent Ooze: Fort DC, creatures proficiency in this DC dependent on level of play (Organized like health change table)

Ooze-rot Abilities
Most creatures affected by ooze-rot have at least one of these abilities. If you give an Ooze-rot affected more, you might want to increase its level and adjust its statistics (already reflected in existing templates).

Quivering legs: A creature with this trait has its legs slowly rotting into an oozing mass that slows them down but makes them harder to move. Decrease the creatures speed by 10 feet (to a minimum of 10 feet). Any attempts to Trip or Shove this creature take a -4 circumstance penalty.

Oozing wounds: Appearing normal on the surface (if not a slightly lumpy), the insides of the creature have started to congeal into a life-sustaining fluid. Each time the creature takes slashing or piercing damage, it gains Fast Healing 5. On the creatures turn, roll to see if this healing stops in the same manor you would resolve persistent bleed damage.

Tight Squeeze: This creature can squeeze through any space that a tiny creature could fit through. This does not allow any weapons or armor that they might be carrying to move through this space.

Double Dribbling: Something horrifying is happening within this creature, preparing it to expand and grow. After being dealt a critical hit, this creature splits into two smaller versions of itself. Each of these versions have half of the health that the original creature had after the critical hit, and each creature has an additional -2 to all checks and DCs, as well as damage. Any weapons and armor that the original creature had are split between the two smaller creatures.

Hello all,

I wanted to gauge people's interest in a "Big Book o' Templates" that could be smacked on a monster. The idea of these templates would be to have a quick and easy to apply modifications to a monster.

Beyond the Elite template, which doesn't modify the flavor of a monster at all, we have more specific templates that change the flavor of a monster. This is an example of an existing monster Template. I would consider a template like this to be pretty complex, but it shows the design-space that exists for creating new templates.

So, to create a template template (I'm sorry), a monster template should outline the following:

* Level adjustment
* Number changes (AC, modifiers and DC changes)
* Health adjustment
* Strike/ability damage adjustments
* Abilities added by the template

The framework is relatively light, with the intention being that you should be able to slap it on a monster easily (or click a button on FoundryVTT or HeroLab).

Here is an example of a template I thought could be cool

Spore Infested
Level adjustment: 0
Bonuses and DCs: (AC/Saves/Attack modifiers) -1
Health adjustment: down one level (depending on chart in Elite adjustment entry
Strike/damage adjustments: -2 damage to melee strikes

Ability:
Fungal Rupture (Reaction) when this creature reaches zero hit points, it tears open violently, releasing spores in a powerful blast. All creatures within 10 feet must make a basic reflex save. Deals a number of d6's equal to half the creatures level (minimum 1).

Boom, evocative monster (balance not guaranteed, this is me throwing out ideas).

I admit this is a personal pet peeves, but I really dislike when class versus class analysis gets white-room abstracted to the point where people are saying "37.9% optimal DPR decrease from the damage gold standard". I am really glad that people are representing the fact that the mechanics of the Swashbuckler make you play and feel like a Swashbuckler. I do agree that all classes should be competitive with each other, but there needs to be a healthy variety of classes with a healthy variety of how they do their thing.

Thanks for the feedback guys, I am writing up (and doing a LOT of formatting) a first pass at the class. I want to create enough feats to give an idea for how the class would feel, but I don't want to spend too long trying to fully finish the first release of the class before getting specific feedback. I will work in your suggestions! Looking forward to more of your feedback.

The only thing to keep in mind here is that the Gold Economy of a given PC, or even a Party as a whole could be severely disrupted by something like this.

If someone needs not spend money on Weapons, Armor, or even "Wondrous Items" then that can leave a lot of Coin on the table to drastically improve the overall balance of powerful equipment the Party has access to.

You raise a really good point, and I concede that the only way the class could work is if it doesn't screw with the gold economy. Thankfully if we look at alchemist we have some inspiration as to how we could provide materials for a crafter.

The Rune Smith could provide free talismans each day (for early level benefit, more on that later), but upon purchasing/crafting runes (keeping gold economy in mind), they could 'refine' or improve the Rune.

Some examples of an improvement could be:
[For a +1 potency rune]
* At level 3, you can add a weapon trait to the weapon (you're +1 rune gives your weapon the Disarm/Trip/Shove trait, allowing you to use it to disarm, and gain the potency bonus to the attack)
[For a Striking rune]
* When adding a Striking rune, you can change the type of damage for the additional dice (slashing to Acid, Fire, etc)
[For unique Runes Smith abilities]
* Having a unique armor rune(that you create free daily, or something similar) that gives you the benefit of the shield Block reaction. This would be expended and need to be refocused to use again. In this example, the rune wouldn't increase your AC, but just offer a single burst of DR in combat.

I could keep going with ideas but I think I want to structure it a bit more. I think that talismans or unique runes (effective class abilities) would be the best way to start the class, and instead of getting free runes, make the class enhance the runes or tweak how they work!

I made a separate post about this because it was kinda big (dont want to Big Wall of Text the discussion), but I was recently thinking of 'updating' the Occultist and taking inspiration from the World of Warcraft Death Knight to make the Rune Smith. The class could use the current rune subsystem, but fill the niche of the crafting intelligence martial. While lacking spell slots entirely, the Rune Smith would focus on enhancing his weapons and armor in combat, either with static buffs, or by unleashing power stored in active runes. After combat, the Rune Smith could draw power back into Runes by refocusing. I think it could fill a niche and be an awesome unique class to 2e.

Hi Guys,

I was inspired by the 'Entirely new class' thread to try and think about what types of class could be created for second edition, without merely recreating older classes from 1e. Since we know there will be some amount of new classes coming out, I tried to think about what aspects of the new edition could lend themselves well to being fleshed out into a class-- the answer may surprise you!

Runes . Inspired by the 1e Occultist and the World of Warcraft Death Knight, a class specializing in a runic arsenal could open up a new design space within Second Edition without requiring entirely new systems to be developed to accommodate it.

From this-- the Rune Smith is born!

Some quick notes on the inspiration:
--Occultist -- The occultist focuses on the world around him, grounded in the powers that flow throughout his environment. He studies the magic that infuses everything, from psychic resonances left in everyday items to powerful incantations that fuel the mightiest spells. The occultist channels his psychic might through implements—items that allow him to focus his power and produce incredible effects.

--Death Knight -- Death knights are melee fighters that wield dark magic and rune-forged weapons. Death knights utilize enchanted rune weapons that enhance their abilities and are powerful foes on the battlefield.

At a glance: What would make a Rune Smith unique?
-- Instead of traditional spells, the Rune Smith would have a number of special runes that can be placed on weapons or armor. These runes could have the Lesser/Greater qualities that are seen in many different tiers of magical and alchemical items. These runes could either offer a minor boost to their weapon constantly, or offer a more powerful boost once (expending the magic, and requiring the Rune Smith to refocus and draw power back into the rune).
It is easy enough to have the Rune Smith be the only one to use such runes, and the draw could be to add unique rune effects to weapons and armor, or get access to traditional runes either cheaper or earlier. As a bonus, they could have a class ability that makes it free to transfer runes, or similar things.

Rune Callings: A Rune Smith dedicates themselves to a certain Calling, preferring to focus on perfecting one type of Runic creation:
-- These Callings could focus on being a consistent martial combatant, creating Runes that offer better spell-like effects, or making the Rune Smith significantly tankier and more defensive. As I currently imagine the class, they could be a capable martial chassis that can be specialized to move towards marital excellence, spell combat, or defensive mastery.

Why could this class succeed?
-- Quite simply, I think that the Rune system is very interesting, and could benefit GREATLY from having a class that champions the system. The lore behind the class can offer some cool in-game moments when using Focus to draw power back into spent runes, or providing a constant effect to weapons and armor. The class would draw inspiration from Pathfinder 1st Edition content, but not be a carbon copy of previous classes.

Let me know what you think!

+1 for naming weapons. I'm playing a shwashbuckler cavalier "Rose-Knight" devotee of Shelyn, with the backstory mirroring some of the Shelyn-Zon Kuthon struggles. My Rose-Knight wields a buckler painted to resemble a black rose, and uses a spiked chain (ZK weapon) called Blackthorn (meant to resemble the thorny stem of a rose).

It makes the game 10x better to describe my knight wielding arms and armor that are meant to represent both Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon, hoping to inspire beauty and remember that even the most wicked might be saved.

Edit: probably worth mentioning he's a black Kobold atop a Riding Drake, so the Dragon riding a dragon wielding imagery or Shelyn and Zon Kuthon is just an all around flavor win for me.

My current Extinction Curse character: The Dragon Knight (Free archetype variant, started at level 2 (RIP Swip)).

Ancestry and heritage: Black Dragonscaled Kobold
Background: Dragon Scholar
Class: Gymnast Swashbuckler

STR 16
DEX 18
CON 12
WIS 8
INT 8
CHA 14

Main weapon: spiked chain (sweet sweet trip and disarm from a mount)
Level 1: Disarming flair (trip and disarm Pachache)
Level 2 Archetype: Cavalier (Riding drake mount)

Be a black Dragonscaled Kobold, riding a black dragon. Trade swashbuckler mobility for a slick drake that you ride while tripping and knocking the weapons from your foes hands, before sweeping down on them with a finisher.

TL:DR Make guns cool by making their ammo be useful for different things. For example have armor piercing ammunition that ignores a certain amount of DR or hardness.

I had some ideas way way back (almost a year ago now). I had made a homebrew post: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pu1?Early-Firearms-and-the-Musketeer#1

To be honest, I'd skip over most of it (it's a year old and I was generating ideas long before the swashbuckler came out, so there was an imagined idea for panahe in there), but one thing I want to pluck from the old post is how Firearms could find their niche with different types of Ammo. Specifically, different ammunition could be used to be better against targets with hardness (bypassing armor specialization DR and shield hardness).

SuperBidi wrote:

Level 3 Monk: 22 AC/24 with a Shield raised. Completely broken in my opinion.

It's actually worse than that on a Mountain Stance Monk. At level 3 they have 7 (proficiency) + 4 status (stance) + 5 item (mutagen) = 26 AC without a shield. A champion only has 7 (proficiency) + 6 item (full plate) = 23 before shield. Even if we up it a few levels to the point the champion has his +1 armor the monk AC is still as high as his is with his shield up. Sure, there's opportunity cost to drinking the mutagen, but there's opportunity cost to raising your shield every round too...

This is pseudo hear-say, but when people were originally showing off some options last week on the Pathfinder 2e discord, this came up. One of the developers basically said it was an oversight, and that there is a good chance Mountain Stance might get changed to be item bonus to AC. Time will tell, if errata comes out and they don't change it then Monk is the champion (ironic) of high AC. My unsubstantiated guess is that they will change it to fix this error.

The argument being made that Paizo is "monetizing" every possible action in the game is being made in bad faith. The suggestion of such a trend is hyperbolic in nature, because it can be shown that just about every one of these dissenting examples are being made into feats in order to do something better, faster, or with less buy-in than you would normally need.

The real problem is that it takes no effort to loudly declare that Paizo is ruining the game and locking every action behind a feat. The onus is then pushed on to the other readers of the forums to show that the doomsayer's are in fact incorrect. This situation is rinse and repeat, because nothing said is likely to change any minds on the other person's side of the argument.

I know this is a bit cross-universe, but I LOVED the idea of androids gaining true sentience when a soul began inhabiting their body. I made a Starfinder character based around the first moments of true consciousness, and the first time an Android had a dream. Being capable of thought routines versus being capable of thinking and dreaming was a super cool distinction. Applied here, it's interesting to think about an undead's corrupted soul allowing them to dream, but like with everything else the act of dreaming itself is unsettling and twisted and anything but restful.

Maybe that's why undead are so evil... They have never gotten a good night's rest.

Shandyan wrote:

Foundry has integration with Dungeondraft, and there's also a module that will take your (legal!) Paizo adventure pdf and populate most of the maps and other specifics for you. All the AP creatures are in the basic PF2 foundry.

Yup, and there is an importer that allows you to directly copy the stat blocks from official paizo pdfs and make an NPC out of them. It works without any editing about 90% of the time. The other 10% just requires a little tweaking because a comma or newline are in the wrong place and make for an easy fix.

Do you guys have the names of these modules? These sound wonderful.

I'm not normally one to call for threads getting closed, but this is a pretty 'click-bait'y title that has already started to diverge. The idea that the system is destroying OP's game group is clearly hyperbole, and I'm not sure much can be said beyond the fact that this seems like it's born from table issues that need to be resolved between GM and players.

To echo something I saw earlier in this thread, a book to support Mythic play would be incredible. I think it could work in 2e because one main problem with 1e mythic involved how it played with the action economy (lots of swift actions or free additional spells). I think Mythic support within the 3-action-economy could work better. Plus I love imagining the book of Mythic feats they could make...

I do love the image of a heavenly Goblin Prometheus giving the first early Goblins fire. Call the Holiday Pyresday and have it involve a lot of dancing around enourmous pyres of wood and refuse and (non-shiny) loot.

Goblin stories around the campfire would probably be closer to involving them screaming songs while they accidently start to burn down a village.

I think that the rule structure of the game would translate very well to a CRPG, because there is an underlying engine that is used across many different rules. Some examples:

1. Degrees of success is used across almost everything, and the math is based on +/- 10.

2. Level factors in to everything, so again supplying the math to different aspects of the game can be done across attacks, difficulty classes (including AC, since it's a DC), and skill checks.

3. Because opposed rolls are reduced to basically rolling initiative, you can totally redesign how two entities interact with each other. Instead of rolling off, choosing the applicable modifiers for each entity, and comparing them, you now have a unified "DC" to beat when interacting, which is always 10 + their accompanying modifier.

4. The structure of feats (class, general, skill) means that you have a clear coded 'class' for each thing that can be expanded on. People are free to create their own feats, free to change the availability of the feats in the game, and since feats unlock more options and don't just statically increase numbers in 2e (aside from a few examples where proficiency is increased or something similar), access to feats won't risk breaking the balance of the game in terms of difficulty (since level helps balance the difficulty progression inherently).

Anyways, sorry for a level 5 Wall of Text, but those are just some of my thoughts on why it's positioned to work very well in a computer environment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

----

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:

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. .

Advancement
___________________________________________________________________________ _
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.

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.

Cheers

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?

THIS IS NOT A DRILL, I WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE AND DOWNLOAD THE PDF,

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

Today is the day!!!!

T MINUS ZERO!

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.

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.

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!

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).

Edit:
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.

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.

Ancestry and Class Breakdown:

Classes:

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

Ancestries:

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

Half Orc: 6
Half Elf: 1
Lizardfolk: 2

Notes:

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.

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.

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.