Baelor the Bard's page

Organized Play Member. 32 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Played through this today as an Operative and had a blast. Only part I didn't like was the three questions at the beginning to figure out which character you are, but I also already knew which one I wanted to play. I get that people will play this who haven't played Starfinder, so it makes sense? Could the skill maybe ask something like "Have you ever played Starfinder before?" Then if the answer is yes you can just opt to choose from a list of characters instead? Food for thought.
The experience however was a total blast. Can't wait for more, particularly starship combat. One mechanic that was a little odd was I had no idea which skills I was good at and which I wasn't, but I made educated guesses or made my Technomancer friend do it instead lol. Can't wait for Incident to come out. Particularly excited for Starship Combat!!!


So I can't find rules about this. In the Oblivion Oath twitch stream Jason said that touch attacks still exist and were handled by the GM, but I can't find them in the CRB. It looks like spell attacks are based on your casting stat now, but do they just resolve against AC or is there something I'm missing?


In the description for Arcane School for Wizards it says, "You gain additional spells and spell slots for spells of your school." It doesn't actually say how many bonus spell slots you get. I'm guessing it's 1 per spell level you can cast just like in first edition, but I can't confirm this anywhere. Is this spelled out somewhere else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valantrix1 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Valantrix1 wrote:
While these sheets are the bomb and all, for future reference it might be helpful for us blind folk if you tagged them for a proper reading order. Right now, I can barely make heads or tails of them.
This is on my radar and very important to me. It may take a bit for us to figure it out, but we will make it happen.

Thanks Jason! That's why you all are awesome!

Oh hey I asked a repeat question. Sorry about that. I appreciate that it's on your radar Jason. I mostly game with roll20 but I am looking for an in person group to game with so I look forward to the screen reader-friendly sheet when it comes out.


Is there a plan to release a PDF character sheet that is usable by blind or visually impaired gamers using screen readers? These ones show up all out of order when I open them and I am unable to fill anything out.


What I found a bit curious was the choice to switch him from the crossbow to axes. Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty cool. But as I recall, the change was because it fit better with Pathfinder second edition. If I recall, Rangers were the only class that got any cool stuff for crossbows at all. They're definitely still not ideal, but when my friend was playtesting his level 4 ranger with a crossbow it definitely seemed better than 1e crossbows.


Aww yeah new classes! I'll have to read them over, but I do have one initial bit of feedback. Isn't Witchwarper kind of an awkward name? I think the class concept is cool but I'm just not sure I like the name.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I unfortunately have not had the opportunity to playtest as much as I would like because my group on the whole has a very negative view of the playtest, and in the end they weren't willing to keep up with all the updates. That being said, I personally had a blast with what little I was able to play, and I'm stoked to see the final product. My current group will likely be sticking with first edition and continue playing through many years of Paizo adventure paths we have yet to play, but I can say with absolute certainty that I will be using Pathfinder second edition in any group I put together in the future, especially if they are new players. I believe that with the player and GM feedback that has been put into this playtest, the final system is going to be awesome. Also, though there are some things that need to be addressed in the way the rulebook is written, I found it much easier to pick up and learn than first edition. My first 1e game that I played with experienced players found me meeting them for the first time with what I thought was a well-built character joining a party that was as minmaxed as possible. Needless to say it took me a great deal of time to figure out the system and to learn to keep up with my group. I can say for sure that my favorite thing about the playtest is the easy character build for new players, and a system designed to consistently produce more balanced characters. I hope I get the opportunity to play it more before the year ends. Thanks for all the hard work.


I'm sorry if this is a really stupid question but I have to ask because my GM won't check this and I don't want to metagame. Are you supposed to gain enough EXP during any part of Doomsday Dawn that your character will level up? My GM has decided to just assume the answer is no, and thus does not tell us EXP for finishing encounters. I've addressed this issue with him because I figured the new EXP system should be playtest just like everything else, but he basically blew me off. To be honest, I'm mainly concerned with part 7 as that would be the only opportunity to playtest up to level 20, and high level play is what I dislike most about first edition.


I theorize that there will still be blog posts. Just no more rules updates to the playtest book. But yeah, they have to stop playtesting it at some point. Everyone will have had more than enough opportunity to give their opinions on what they like and what they don't. For me, there's no way my group is finishing the playtest. We're still on part 2. That being said, I've given what feedback I can, and I've seen pretty much every concern I had but whasn't able to test get addressed by someone else.


Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.

Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.


Raiderrpg wrote:

I was momentarily really excited for this blog when I saw the title, but then saw what it was about. :<

I mean, still awesome to see them making changes and hopefully fixing up the problems I have with the current playtest, which this particular update looks to be trying at- but ouch. You know EXACTLY what you did with that title, don't even pretend :P

It was a bit misleading lol. I'm glad magic is being scrutinized so thoroughly though considering how overpowered it is in 1e, but I'm in the minority that quite likes how spells are in the playtest at the moment, particularly cantrips and powers. I love playing my Bard. I am excited to see how they develop though. But yeah I was expecting stuff about prestige classes also.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
I really missed a question about the current method of preparing spells vs the Arcanist/5e way. Maybe they aren't willing to change that, I don't know, but I've seen a lot of people (me included) saying that they would prefer no one having to prepare how many times they will use each spell and giving spontaneous casters other advantage instead.

I completely agree with this. Arcanist-style or 5e style of preparing spells is wonderful, and I find it preferable to the current system. Also what I was wondering, at least for spontaneous casters, is why doesn't heightening spells work a little more like multi-level spells in starfinder? The ability to spontaneously heighten a couple spells every day is nice, but I like that in starfinder I can learn a spell at a higher level and cast them at lower levels without the spell taking up a spell known at every level I'd like to cast it at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been wondering. There's still over a month left in the year after the playtest of "When the Stars go Dark." Is there more playtest to come in that month? Will there be a playtest of level 20 play? I hope there will be because I think that would be very important to test. Furthermore if that is tested and it goes well, I know I for one would love to see more adventures that go from 1 to 20. In the paths now level 20 always seems like this unattainable goal. I've never played a class all the way there and I don't think I'd want to in the current system. I'm at level 17 in my Mummy's Mask game right now and I'm missing the days when I was level 7 just because of how complicated level 17 is. At least on the surface, the playtest looks like something I'd like to play at higher levels as well as lower ones, but it'd be nice to test.


Ah I found the Divine Wrath fix. Thanks.
As for Heal, it says that the amount of damage increases by 1d8, or by 2d8 if using the 1- or 2-action version to heal the living. So if I am reading this correctly it always does less damage to undead than it heals the living? For example, a level 2 heal would do 2d8+mod damage to an undead or 3d8+mod healing to an ally, but if you use the 3-action version it does 1d8+mod to everyone?


Hi, so a couple of quick questions.
First, for the heal spell, the Heightened entry specifies that the spell increases by 1d8 or 2d8 to heal the living. Does that mean no matter what level it's heightened to the amount to damage undead never changes? I was looking for clarification in the eratta but I couldn't find any.
The second question is for the spell Divine Wrath. The spell does not identify what kind of saving throw it needs.


Hey I just thought of something, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been brought up before. If so, I'd love it if someone could give me a link to the thread because I'm curious what's been said on this previously.
I was reading the comments about people wondering if it was intentional that half-elves can't get up to 40 feet move speed to take that new feat, and it got me thinking. Is there a way the system could be adjusted so that Half-Elves could have Elf as their base ancestry instead of human if that's how the player wanted to build? As the Ancestries are now, I could see an argument that it would be overpowered, but I'd be super interested to see if this could be done. That way you could have your faster half-elf. Half-orcs could also work this way if Orc is ever added as a playable race in a future book. If it can be done, I think it adds a bit more flexibility to what I think is already a very flexible system. Figured I'd throw it out there as a curiosity at the very least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I do really like this change. Last week I mentioned starting off with 2 ancestry feats instead of 1, but I think I like this approach better. I agree with people here that additional changes would be good but that's why we're playtesting this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also confused by the continued use of the term Ancestry. Since Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Goblins, Halflings and Humas are all biologically completely different races it would make more sense to me that they revert to being called Races, with the subcategories either being called Heritages or Ancestries.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

From the perspective of a blind player, it is very difficult to use this updates document in conjunction with the rulebook now that there is so much stuff in it. Honestly I don't know how easy this would be, but it would make my life so much easier if at least the screenreader PDF rulebook could be updated with all of the changes. I understand if this is not feasible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, so I am curious as when to expect the new Shrieking Peak adventure with updated resonance rules? When it was announced it sounded to me like it would be out very soon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Now I feel like making a dual-ax-wielding, ranged-heavy Barbarian, just to prove that it's playable without being useless (as people keep saying will happen as soon as you aren't optimal).

Lol I don't think it would be bad necessarily. Unfortunately though as Barbarian is right now it has no ranged or two-weapon options so I feel like the multi-classing you would have to do in order to pull that off would mean you wouldn't have a whole like of actual Barbarian options in your build.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So a complaint I'm hearing a lot, both on the forums and from my own group, is about forcing classes into niches, such as making two-weapon fighting available only to Rangers and Fighters. I think the biggest issue I have with this line of complaint is that it seems pretty obvious to me that all options available in this admittedly rather limited playtest book are not the only options that will exist in the new system. Maybe the current class feats will be the only ones represented in the new CRB, but there's nothing stoping Paizo from releasing books that contain a whole pile of additional class feats. That's why I personally love the class feat system as opposed to first edition Archetypes. I compare those two systems because I feel that class feats do a lot of what Archetypes do in the current edition, while 2.0 archetypes fill a similar but markably different role. In any case, I think that, as limited as the options are now, they will not remain so as books continue to be released. The real flexibility of this system is how easy it is to add more stuff to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Baelor the Bard wrote:
Hi Jason, While I definitely agree that multi-classing, traits and alternate racial traits caused a great deal of imbalance, I think you may have unbalanced them in the opposite direction for the time being. I quite like the way backgrounds are done in this edition, and ansestry feats would be great if you could start with two instead of one, but multi-classing feels particularly weak in some ways. Most significantly I feel like a lot of the dedication feats give you very little for what you're potentially giving up. For instance, I would consider dipping into Barbarian a bit for my Fighter but I could only Rage once per day. Sure, I could take another couple of feats to resolve this issue, but my character would be significantly better if I just kept taking Fighter feats. I quite like the idea of archetypes and multi-class archetypes being skill feats, but I'd love to get a bit more from the dedication feat. All that said, Pathfinder 2.0 is definitely a game I already enjoy playing, and at the rate things are going I think I'm going to love the final product.

I think you have clued in on a few things we are looking at fixing actually. One of them should be up very very soon. The other may take us a bit.

Hang in there.. we are listening.

That's awesome to hear! I'm looking forward to continuing to play through Doomsday Dawn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Thanks for posting the design goals. Alas all but point 3 if those goals are literally met by D&D 4th ed, D&D 5th ed or any other fantasy tabletop RPG.

Unfortunately I don't see very much of point 3.

The flexibility of background traits have been excised from the game in place of predefined background choices. Archetypes no longer meet their PF1e goal (swap out the non flexible parts of a class) and exist solely to require a feat tax to get certain combat feats/rogue talents.

Multiclassing has been removed from the game in favour of allowing minimal access to certain combat feats/rogue talents/barbarian powers/spells. Alternate racial traits have been removed from the game (along with racial traits themselves) in return for racial powers that are slowly doled out across 20 levels.

I can't really point to any advancement in PF that has made it into the playtest (except those from Unchained). I could point to plenty from other game(s) (automatic universal level based bonus that applies to everything. Class abilities that limit what fighting styles a character can apply based on class gated feats/powers, items having a level that is used to govern how they're handed out, parcel based approach to treasure acquisition in place of WBL). That's not to say these things are bad. Simply that if I was looking at a game's heritage I would struggle to say it's descended from PF1e vs an entirely different game.

John, I have seen you post on here a lot over the past few months and to be honest, I can tell that you care deeply about this game and its future, but I am not sure we are going to able to make you happy.

Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.

A lof the flexibility you seem to be looking for were some of the things causing us the biggest rules problems in the previous editions. Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were...

Hi Jason, While I definitely agree that multi-classing, traits and alternate racial traits caused a great deal of imbalance, I think you may have unbalanced them in the opposite direction for the time being. I quite like the way backgrounds are done in this edition, and ansestry feats would be great if you could start with two instead of one, but multi-classing feels particularly weak in some ways. Most significantly I feel like a lot of the dedication feats give you very little for what you're potentially giving up. For instance, I would consider dipping into Barbarian a bit for my Fighter but I could only Rage once per day. Sure, I could take another couple of feats to resolve this issue, but my character would be significantly better if I just kept taking Fighter feats. I quite like the idea of archetypes and multi-class archetypes being skill feats, but I'd love to get a bit more from the dedication feat. All that said, Pathfinder 2.0 is definitely a game I already enjoy playing, and at the rate things are going I think I'm going to love the final product.


Hi, I was under the impression that you could only sell items for 10% of their worth, but my fellow players are telling me it is 50%. I can't find either in the book. Can someone tell me which it is?


Hi, I can't find clarification on this anywhere. Do the level 2 expert handwraps of mighty fists provide a +1 item bonus to unarmed attack rolls like an expert weapon would do for weapon attacks?


Thanks. For some reason I thought that that only applied to spells that have heightened effects but that's written pretty clearly.


Hello,
I'm sure this has been asked already, but I can't find an answer. Is Dispel Magic a heightenable spell? As I understand the counteract check rules you roll a spell roll using your spellcasting modifier and proficiency modifier against a DC determined by the level of what you are trying to dispel. If the level is higher than the third level dispel magic spell, your check takes a -5 for each level by which the effect's level exceeds 3. As far as I can tell, Dispel Magic is not marked as heightenable, so even a 20th level caster with a Potent magic item buffing their casting score is going to find dispelling even sixth and seventh level spells extremely difficult. Is it possible to cast dispel at higher levels to increase its level, even though it doesn't have any specific heightenable effect?


I think that's how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately since a crossbow is 2-handed I think there's a problem. Bows are 1+ hands, and 1+ handed weapons have something in there about using your other hand for drawing ammunition. Since a crossbow is two-handed, it looks like you would have to remove your hand as an action to draw the ammo, since the reload action only states that you can put your hand back on the weapon as part of the last reload action.


So a crossbow has 1 reload action, but by RAW my players have informed me that you have to take your hand off as an action to reload as an action. I was inclined to say that this was incorrect, but reading it over the rules seem to agree, although putting your hand back on the weapon is part of the reload action. Can I get a ruling on this?


I haven't seen a post on this, so I'm sorry if I missed it. Shouldn't Bards, as the primary occult casters, gain access to tenth level spells? There's no feat for it, and I thought the Playtest blog stated that they would be tenth level casters. Was this just an oversight?