I love this in theory, but as a blind gamer I am seeing a problem. This app doesn't appear to be accessible for blind users at all. Unfortunately I don't know how to make apps accessible, but I do know that both iPhones and Android devices have built-in screen readers for blind users, and I'm pretty sure both offer tools for making their apps more accessible. Unfortunately as it stands right now I can't do anything at all with this app.
Ahh I see where you're going. Well I don't think there will be an opening volley effect that lasts longer than a round, and I think we're much more likely to see firearm proficiency reduced instead of proficiency with other weapons increased. You could easily get off an opening shot and then use that Pistol Twirling feat to keep them flatfooted by feinting. Honestly shooting in melee is usually fine in second edition Pathfinder so I still think it works.
The first level feat Sword and Pistol makes your oponent flatfooted to your melee attack when you hit with the gun. At low levels you do it as an opening volley and at that point in the game you're going to do fine with the lower proficiency of your melee attack. Once you grab reloading strike the basic move becomes shoot, slash, reload. If you use an agile melee weapon being flatfooted will balance out the lower proficiency.
I don't think Drifter is unplayable at all. Until sixth level your pistol is for an opening volley. I'd prefer it if they could grab reloading strike at level 4 especially since the functionally similar Duel Weapon Reload from the archetype is available at that level, but honestly you're doing more damage with your melee weapon than a pistol in any case, with the exception of crits. The feats at lower levels are perfectly suitable to play this way. That's assuming you have the funds to buy a melee weapon and a pistol at first level, which could be a stretch.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
They do specify that ammunition is already prepared as paper cartridges, although I agree that shoving a paper cartridge down the barrel in real life would probably take longer than 1 action. That being said, in first edition it was possible to get it down to a free action and get 5+ shots at someone's touch AC, so given that guns no longer have the touch AC advantage I would honestly be upset if the reload time was longer.
I'm using Adobe and NVDA. I'll give QRead a try. I got it to work alright in Microsoft Edge but I had to tweak some things.
So I'm wondering if firearms with multiple barrels are planned for this book, such as the Pepperbox or the Double-Barreled Pistol from 1E? They seem doable if you add something like a Capacity trait with a value, such as Capacity 6 for a pepperbox. Reloading actions might get weird though. Still, I'd be interested to see if these make their way to 2E.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi, so a couple of quick questions.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
That's awesome to hear! I'm looking forward to continuing to play through Doomsday Dawn.
Jason Bulmahn 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 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?