Belisar's page

The feat grants 2 cantrips to a rogue. The neat thing is there is no prerequisite.
Are those cantrips still heightened up to half the character level? And are those cantrips not exhausted, meaning I can cast them as often as I like?

I get it how Cantrip work and how innate spells work. But I am still a bit confused about innate cantrips. The cantrip entry on pg. 300 of the CRB states that cantrips are not exhausted. The innate entry two pages later states that innate spells are usually once-per-day, but innate cantrips are cast at will.

Now my question would be, are innate cantrips once per day or non exhausted per cantrip definition? Personally I would go with the cantrip entry, but is there an official clarification on that?

As I actually play with only two players (wive and son, me as GM), I wonder if I could level them up to 4th level with the Plagestone adventure and then start the Age of Ashes AP with those 2 4th level chars instead of 4 new 1st level chars?

Any advice on that? Is it doable? Can Age of Ashes be easily scaled with starting chars higher than 1st level if the party is that small?

Hazzuh!!! ....Huzzuh!!! ....meh...Huzzah!!!

Being european I sadly have to wait until August for receiving my copies. But I have a nagging curiosity about what's stated in the subject and hope for some insight of anybody being lucky to already own the books.
In the playtest increased weapon damage was tied to the quality of the weapon (if my memory serves me right or was it by enhancement runes?). There was some discussion about playtesters that increased weapon damage might be better tied to the level of the character to display the growing prowess with growing experience than only to the weapon.

How is this handled in the final product? Is increased weapon damage by additional damage dice still tied to the weapon or was this altered or removed completely?

Thanks in advance! =)

If I wanted to start a standard 4 PCs 1st level adventure with only 2 PC (due to lack of other players in my area), how would you adjust their level to be still up to the task?
For instance, if I wanted to play the beginner box adventure with only two PCs, what would you advise me to scale PC wise without modifying the adventure itself too much? Could 2 3rd level chars be up to the task for usually 4 1st level chars?

I preordered all the 2nd edition stuff (every single item and oh boy, my wife will beat me for the expenses :D ) and am giddy with excitement.
Now it's still a couple of months ahead until August and the latest update of the playtest material is apparently far from being close to the final product.

Is there a chance that there will be a kind of quickstart adventure before August to sweeten the time of waiting? (One can dream...)

The sorcerer has a spell repertoire from which she can choose freely when casting as long as spell slots are available.
Clerics and wizards can only cast the spells, they have specifically prepared. How if they could prepare a subset of the spells from the spellbook/domain from which they choose freely not unlike the spell repertoire of the sorcerer? That would make those caster classes more appealing and way more flexible.

When coming to social interactions beyond diplomacy and intimidation, how is good old persuasion (maybe even seduction) supposed to work if there is no skill specifically for it?
Diplomacy seems to be closest to persuasion, but the description does not really cover persuasion/seduction. Maybe "make an impression" comes close but the description is a bit fuzzy and does not specifically cover persuasion/seduction as said. Any suggestions? Did I miss something?

Some argue that allocating certain feats to classes restricts the freedom to individualize the character. They advocate to open all feats to every class. I tended to agree and thought gatekeeping was the death of individualization. But then I questioned this view and became very sympathetic to this class feat approach. Not every character benefits from every ability right now, even if feats were opened to everybody.
Look at magic, you could argue with the same eligibility that every class should be able to cast magic, it would be just fair. Don't gate spells behind caster classes. But then we could skip the concept of classes generally with only races being the only initial distinction in character creation. You could build up your character freely, right?
But we do have classes and classes should differ from each other. Each class should have its strengths and feats that make them so desireable for stereotypical character concepts. A fighter should have better access to feats that enhance melee and ranged combat. Why should a wizard have the same acces to combat feats when the fighter has none to magic. This is what archetypes are for. You choose an archetype and you siphon from the desired class feats as you like. Same for wizards, same for fighters. Fighters want to dabble in magic? Go take the wizard archetype. Wizards want to enhance their martial prowess? Go take the fighter archetype.

As a conclusion I think class feats are a great idea, so are archetypes. I hope this concept will be expanded in the future.

The rulebook states that you get XP for combat and social encounters. What's about potential encounters the group managed to avoid? Will those also add up to the XP for an adventure? Or are only killed monsters awarded with XP? This would be a little letdown because it would prevent the group from seeking alternative solutions. Am I missing anything here?

Is the weakness also doubled on a critical hit? For instance, mummies have weakness 10 to fire. Is weakness also doubled and thus the mummies suffers 20 damage from fireattacks instead of 10 on a normal fire based attack?

The following thoughts on resonance points originated from the experience of of my group an me while playtesting.

I am aware, that Resonance Points as a topic is definitely in the upper range of the top 10 list of issues of many players. I can understand the wish to limit the excessive usage of magic items, to give the GM a tool into his hands to regulate magic items by rule in the core rulebook. Something similar to attunement in 5e.

But, honestly, restricting magical items should be always up to the GM. A GM complaining about an abudance of magic items in his group is responsible for this situation himself in a very high degree, because he let the players acquiring them. And regarding crafting, the GM can limit the access to materials needed to craft magic items and he should so.

But nonetheless, I'm not here to just complain, here is my take on resonance points:

- If using resonance at all, award a character resonance points one/level +2 without any attribute modifier. You learn to handle more magic items with growing experience and without any influence of an attribute.
- Only use resonance points to invest items, I kind of like the concept, that sometimes the full potential of magic items is only tapped in by investment. But don't invest each day anew, it suffices if an item is invested and the resonance point reserved. It feels arkward if the party is surprised in the middle of their 8 hours rest and suddenly all permanent items are not invested ny more and their potential probably reduced.
- For consumables there should be no need to spend resonance at all because, for example in case of healing potions, they contain magic that has been already invoked and just has to be imbibed. In case of consumable wands, rods, etc. just use one resonance point to invest them. That suffices, no resonance spends for each charge. Rather use daily charges instead of charges times available resonance points.
- No overspending, PF2 should be about less book keeping, so no necessary check lists.

Of course, best would be to make resonance a modular option and nothing hardwired into the system mechanic. So everybody can decide for themselves if they want to implement any restriction on magic or none at all. As I wrote in the introduction, usually it should be the job of the GM (based on the setting) how many items are provided to the players. And if at all, use resonance only for investing items.

So usually if you have a skill, weapon, armor, etc. trained you usually get your level as a bonus. Does the same apply to shields? Shields can be trained as well. So if I raise my heavy steel shield with its bonus of +2 and I am a fighter level 3, would I apply my level to the shield bonus as well and get an overall +5 bonus to my AC?