Ben Jordan's page

Should the rating for training in Crafting change if you take the Munitions Crafter feat and further associated ones? I like being able to craft higher level alchemical items to get the best use out of Munitions crafter.

Can anyone at Paizo confirm that the spine is going to be white with the same green font as the core books?

I’ve always loved how beyond the core in premaster the spines were all cool and themed to the book. But it looks like I may be in the minority.

Will we get the Battlecry specific font and a different colour on the spine pretty please?! ;-P.

Having War of Immortals come out with the same white spine and green font as the core rulebooks made me sad. All pre-master rulebooks outside of core had their unique font and colour on the spine and made the bookshelf look WAY better IMHO.

I'm not sure why it was decided to "bland-up" all the remaster spines.

I would love a bunch of generic martial/military-themed archetypes. By generic I mean like the ones in PC2. I find it quite difficult to use a lot of the overly flavorful Golarion-themes archetypes.

New question regarding the new activity Reconnoiter Hex - is this meant to be a Leadership Activity? Or Region Activity?

Seems better served as a Leadership Activity as Region Activities are already packed with too many good options (or almost mandatory ones like Claim Hex). If's it's a Region Activity, I don't really seen it being used, which is unfortunate as I love the idea of it.

Will there be a sketch cover? (Is sketch cover a standard option from now on?)

Offhand, I'm guessing maybe they just don't want people exploring at full speed anymore???

Yeah I guess that must be the case. I play a ranger. At 5th level I used to be able to cover tracks and avoid notice at full speed together (now need to wait until 16th when I can get Legendary Sneak). At 15th level I used to be able to also track at full speed (via Swift Tracker) with avoid notice (only one level wait to now do at 16th, so not so bad I guess). And with Hazard Finder, I could cover all the danger parts of the Search activity stacked as well.

So yeah, it's not a huge deal, and I'm ok with the change, just weird to do a stealth nerf (pun intended) when it probably wasn't hurting anyone beforehand?

I was just reading Player Core, and I noticed the description of Avoid Notice (p438) no longer has the rider affect from Swift Sneak and Legendary Sneak. The Core Rulebook had:

You attempt a Stealth check to avoid notice while traveling at half speed. If you have the Swift Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed rather than half, but you still can’t use another exploration activity while you do so. If you have the Legendary Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed and use a second exploration activity. If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

Emphasis mine.

While Player Core only has:
You attempt a Stealth check to avoid notice while traveling at half speed. If you're Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

I assume this is an accidental omission to Player Core?

I can't wait for Battlecry. Both classes look amazing and are right up my alley. Can it be next year now plz?

I've noticed the spine for Howl of the Wild includes the standard green details around the Pathfinder and Paizo logo at the top and bottom. Which is the same as the new remaster core books. (also the HotW front cover has the second edition in green banner in the top right). In pre-master, all books after the core six came out had unique spine design without the colored top and bottom, they had unique font on the spine, and had Second Edition by itself in the middle of the top of the cover.

While 100% subjective, I much preferred the unique spine design. It made books arrayed on the shelf much more vibrant to look at. Given that the books live there, I feel the spine design is a lot more important than perhaps it is given credit for.

Does anyone know if the new remaster books (Howl of the Wild, War of Immortals and beyond) are going to follow the remaster core books with white spines, standard font, and green top and bottom? Or will they go back to unique designs?

As a related question, do the images of the books on the website accurately reflect the spine design? It looks like they do in most cases, but I haven't seen any in hand images of Howl of the Wild so I'm not sure.

Is that new art an homage to the classic D&D 2e module "A Paladin in Hell"? Either way, I love it!

I'm very excited for it as well. I do hope it is more along the lines of Monster Codex and Villain Codex from 1e - whereby the NPCs are grouped into themes with supporting information, rather than just pages of individual NPC stat blocks.

I love this idea of stands-alone adventures. One where they explicitly don’t have any suggested lead in to the adventure

Vance and Kerenshara - your work is great!

My PCs have just been handed their charter at the start of Chapter 4 and will be creating their kingdom next week.

I'll be using your suggested changes.

A few questions:

• 1. Have you created a consolidated document that includes your changes as well as the other rules that have not been changed? I.e. an all-in-one resource to run Kingdom Building as per your changes?
  
• 2. Do you have a document of your additional homebrew designs that you are willing to share?

Thanks again for your work. I'm actually looking forward to the kingdom building now!

I really want to see one book that make all necessary changes for SF2 classes to seamlessly play in PF2. I already know the rule set is fully compatible but, for example, the Soldier currently is a two-handed ranged weapon specialist (AFAIK). In SF2 that’s easy, they use big guns. How does it work in PF2? Do they use crossbows or bows or firearms? Can PF2 have a melee-specialist Soldier?

Maybe it’ll already be apparent on launch of SF2, but if not, give me the conversion rules!!

I really hope they get auto scaling Crafting like the Inventor.

And they open up the Key Attribute for the subclasses. So INT is available for everyone as key attribute. But Bombers can take DEX if they want to for instance.

My FLGS (in Australia) hasn't communicated a minimum volume of regular covers to secure a sketch cover. I just order the sketch cover only.

However, with Australia being the bottom of the world, none of the physical books (regular or sketch) are getting shipped to my FLGS until February. It's a massive downer and isn't a once off. Rage of Elements only got stocked recently but came out in August, same with Highhelm.

The physical distribution network makes it difficult to keep up the enthusiasm for new products for PF2e. Especially compared to "the-game-who-shall-not-be-named" which has the books available in Australia at the exact same time as the rest of the world.

At 4th level you'd be competing against Advanced Warden for the next tier of warden spells and Running Reload. At 6th you'd be competing against Masterful Warden, Skirmish Strike, or Snap Shot. Then things like Deadly Aim and Peerless Warden, Warden's Focus, etc.

Snip

Is Advanced Warden a prerequisite for Masterful Warden? Is there any prequisites for higher level warden spells? Or can I pick and choose whatever slots of warden spells I want without needing others I don’t want?

I’m hoping the ranger can pick any warden spells without needing others. Having to take the lowest level spells just to get a spell pool so you can get a higher level spell was an annoying spell tax.

If the spells are now all a feat tree it will be even worse. I want to pick whatever spells look cool without being forced to take other ones.

The original methodology for the "Core 20" was that we wanted to have 2 choices for every alignment, but also to try to make sure that we had at least 1 "perfect choice" for all the various character classes we had in the game at the time with the 3.5 SRD. I don't recall the exact reasoning why we chose Lawful Good and Neutral to get the 19th and 20th leftover slots, but I think it probably had something to do with the fact that since paladins in that time were always Lawful Good we needed an extra choice there, and since druids were always Neutral adjacent they needed an extra choice there.

As for why 20? Because it was a fun nod to the fact that it was a d20 game we were creating.

Regardless... a "core 20" is something that we want to keep. It's served the game well by presenting a diverse range of choices for most archetypes of play without being too overwhelming.

I love this kind of behind-the-screen insight into Pathfinder and very much appreciate your openness and willigness to share. Thanks James!

Is there a reason why the blurb to the book says "Written by: John Compton, Crystal Frasier, and Caryn DiMarco" but the cover attributes it solely to John Compton?

Not a criticism, just interested.

I read most of the comments an think that most people enjoy either the multiclass archetypes and/or the generic ones (marshal, sentinel, acrobat etc). There seems to be less love for the Golarion-themed ones (firebrand braggart, halcyon speaker, hellknight armiger etc).

I am one of those who love the generic ones and TBH wish there was more at the expense of the Golarion-themed ones).

bugleyman wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

My objection is actually the opposite: Player Core 2 is the only book of the four that doesn't contain the core rules; it is explicitly a supplement, and as such should not have the world "core" in the title. That fact that it does represents an inconsistency that could easily prove confusing for the uninitiated.

To be clear, this isn't a tragedy, but it is a pretty obvious unforced error on Paizo's part. And I expect that, just as WotC figured out that "Player's Handbook 2" was a bad name, Paizo will figure this out when they get tired of fielding questions about why "Player Core 2" doesn't have the core rules for, you know, players.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. ;-)

I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is a sizable portion of players that would be outraged if Champions and Sorcerers and Monks were not "Core classes" that are basic staple of the game, and not supplemental classes unnecessary for the game to work. The fact that the classes all already exist makes splitting the player core in half relatively manageable, but I am sure if there were tables telling their players that you can't be a monk because it is not in the core, there would be no end to the bad feelings.

This is my bugbear as well. I agree that Player Core 2 is a mislabled titled. My preference is Player Core Expansion. Though I've said this on many a platform and thread now. Time for a break.

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

Mythraine wrote:

What are the odds of sketch covers for the other two core books? (PC2 and MC)

Someone asked this on Reddit, and Erik Mona said this:

"We will be doing these for all four announced Remaster books. It remains to be seen if we will do them beyond that, but I’m encouraged by the positive reaction. If people buy them, we’ll make more."

Nice! I actually hope the sketch covers remain exclusive to the four core books and they are not repeated past them. It will make the four core books feel extra special.

What are the odds of sketch covers for the other two core books? (PC2 and MC)

Will the sketch wrap around to the spine? Or will the spine remain the white and black (or dark green?) as shown in these images?

Given that books spend most of their lives with just the spine showing, there have been a number of books I've been swayed to buy just for the excellent spine!

With all the ancestry name changes over the last couple of years (ratfolk to ysoki, lizardfolk to iruxi and now gnoll to kholo), what is their status in the ORC?

Are they able to be freely used in any unrelated material if the ORC is appropriately referenced? Or are they considered Paizo IP (like Red Mantis Assassins)?

Hopefully it's the former. I'd love to have all my gnolls now be kholo with no IP issues. If it's the latter then other publishers need to find a new third name for all of these ancestries (yes, it's a hyena-headed anthropomorphic humanoid, called, um, a Hyenu, haha, yes, that will do)

Evan Tarlton wrote:

James has said that #200 will be somewhat nostalgic...

Yup. But swap out "somewhat" for "very."

Hell's Rebels was amazing regardless, but the special issue 100 was even better. Can't wait to see what AP brings in issue 200.

I was also interested that Sky King's Tomb is the third 3-issue AP in a row. But now it makes sense if Issue 200 is meant to be the 5th of a 6-issue AP instead of the 2nd of a 3- or 6-issue AP.

Mythraine wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH since the great appeal of Flickmace comes from combining Shield and Reach, I do not see Paizo giving us a more accessible weapon that would do the same.

I mean, we already have whips, scorpion whips, asp coils, and pantograph gauntlets. A d6 martial reach spear doesn't seem that out of line.

I would want at least d8 1H reach martial spear. Flickmace is d8. Martial spear should be an improvement on the longspear, not an improvement on the regular spear (reach weapon probably won't be Thrown). So for names - Warspear anyone?

If it's meant to be a 1h martial weapon, it would be a D6 with the Reach trait, and maybe the Brace D8 trait.

snip ...

I like this a lot.

D8 reach 1 handed is advanced weapon territory. Other weapon traits like shove, sweep, or versatile can't compete with reach if it would be martial.

Ok, so then I also would like a d8 1H reach advanced spear. ;-)

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH since the great appeal of Flickmace comes from combining Shield and Reach, I do not see Paizo giving us a more accessible weapon that would do the same.

I mean, we already have whips, scorpion whips, asp coils, and pantograph gauntlets. A d6 martial reach spear doesn't seem that out of line.

I would want at least d8 1H reach martial spear. Flickmace is d8. Martial spear should be an improvement on the longspear, not an improvement on the regular spear (reach weapon probably won't be Thrown). So for names - Warspear anyone?

Another thing I'd be keen on is either a weapon or feat that allows for spear and shield with reach (hoplites, phalanx formation etc). Like the Shield Brace feat of 1e. Make it a 1H martial spear with reach, but only usable 1handed with a shield.

It may not be on theme for this book, but I want rules and equipment for exotic mounts, specifically flying mounts. Like the Monstrous Mount feats from PF1e.

I'd love to see support rules for flying cavalry. Using the mount rules for Hippgryphs, Griffons, Manticores, Pegasi, Rocs - all of that.

Also a way to add the mount special ability to any mount.

I desperately need rules for monstrous animal companions. Similar to the Monstrous Mount feats from 1E.

Please give me my Griffons, Pegasi, Unicorns, Manticores and Hippogryphs!!

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

What's the build summary? I'd be keen to understand how to get the best out of an Oracle.

Does anyone play with "FA-lite"? I have yet to GM my first 2e game (1e campaign still wrapping up). I plan to make FA default, but only give an extra feat on levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

If the levels for FA feat don't work for character concept I can work with the player, but this seems more manageable.

Wat do people think?

The Raven Black wrote:

One Stealth roll for both is how I see it. If you beat their Perception, either you stay hidden and sneak by them unnoticed and no encounter even begins, or you spring from your hiding place to attack first.

If their Perception is higher, they saw you coming and act first.

Yeah, I think this is generally how it works. But what if the PCs have Incredible Initiative? What if you rolled a 25 for your Stealth Initiative (incorporating the +2 for the feat) and the enemy rolls a 24 Perception initiative. You get to go first.....BUT are you hidden? Does that +2 (that specifically ONLY refers to initiative checks) also apply to your Stealth check to stay hidden? Do you have a 25 Initiative but only a 23 to stay hidden?

My understand is that it still doesn't work like this.

So you roll 25 for stealth (inc. incredible initiative). Opponent rolls 24. You go first.

BUT, then the 23 Stealth (exc. incred. init.), is vs. the opponents Perception DC. So what if that same opponent only has +5 Percepction (so rolled a 19 to get 24), then the perception DC is 15, and you are hidden. OR, that opponent has +14 Perception (so rolled an 10 to get 24), then the perception DC is 24, and you are NOT hidden.

I plan to implement a scaled down free archetype variant rule.

The archetype feats are at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

This is mostly to be able to more easily replicate 1e characters in 2e.

Hello brains trust.

I love Automatic Bonus Progression but I have two problems with magic item cost in with ABP.

1. Buying Magic Items with ABP
In 1e, the attack bonus, armor bonus and profiency bonus of all magic items was clear. 1,000gp for +1 armor, 4,000gp for +2 armor, 2,000gp for +1 weapon, 2,500gp for +1 skill bonus etc.

In 1e, using the 1e ABP, if the PCs found a +1 flaming longsword, I would price it at 6,000gp (the regular 8,000gp minus the 2,000gp for a +1 weapon - whether or not that was RAW correct it doesn't matter - it seemed to work out).

I can't find an equivalent pricing for 2e.

If my PC wants to buy boots of bounding for the extra 5ft movement, what does it cost? The PC can't utilize the +2 item bonus for high and long jumps, so what discount should be applied?

Is there an official answer? (edit) Do I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit)

My current plan is just to let potency and item bonus both exist, though not stack. Therefore the PC just pays the full price for the item, but won't get double the bonus. The problem is it encourages the PC to buy magic items in skills other than the ones they get potency for (but is that actually a problem?).

2. Creating PCs above 1st level with ABP
What do I do to adjust table 10-10 to account for ABP? I couldn't find an official answer.

OPTION 1 Make no changes. With this option, all magic items are the same price and potency and item bonus both exist but do not stack. But the PC will have more "stuff" because they'll get their weapon and armor bonuses through ABP and get to spend all their gold on other magic items.

OPTION 2 Reduce the number of permanent items allowed in Table 10-10. But by how much? At level 12, a PC should get a +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and a +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) through ABP. But table 10-10 doesn't even allow a 12th level PC to have a LV 12 magic weapon yet. So what do I reduce the table to?

OPTION 3 Reduce the lump sum gold allow in table 10-10. But by how much? Using the same level 12 example as option 2, the +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) are a total of 3,400gp. But how much is +1 to all Perception checks worth? How much is a flat +1 or +2 to a skill worth? This links back to the first topic above on buying magic items. (edit) Again, should I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit)

Hoping for some good advice or solutions that have seen play - or even an official rule I've missed.

Thanks!

Excellent. Thanks everyone.

The Rogue multiclass archetype gives a free skill feat that the player can choose.

If taken at level 2, this skill feat would have to be a level 1 feat and therefore not more powerful than any other archetype that give a specific skill feat (which is usually a low level one).

But what happens if a PC takes the Rogue archetype at a higher level - e.g. through the human Multitalented ancestry feat.

Can the skill feat be any feat the PC currently qualifies for?

e.g. A PC is Master in Stealth at level 7. They take the Rogue Archetype via Multitalented at level 9. Can they take Swift Sneak as their skill feat? (requires master in stealth).

Feyblood and Shadowblood options as versatile heritages.

I see your point

The extra things TWFers pay are not significant to a degree that requires errata or pressures Paizo into changing their mind. They're insignificant to most users, as the overwhelming majority of this thread's responses indicate.

Emphasis mine - overwhemling majority is not something you should assume. I don't believe he is beating a dead horse. 2E is still quite new and there are areas that could be improved.

N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification. I agree with those points on the whole. I'm flexible to the outcome - whether it be a hard ruling for Quick Draw, or drawing weapons in general, or whether it be a new option that works better for TWFs. e.g. "Double Draw" a feat that allows you to draw or stow two weapons in one action.

But either way, I would also like either a ruling, or a new option as I also believe the current steup is not supportive of TWFing.

Was it mentioned how long the second printing had already been shipping for? If I order it through other sites, will I get a first printing or second printing? (Sadly the shipping is too much to Australia from paizo.com).

I’m very keen to get a copy, just want it to be a second printing.

I've been reading this thread from the beginning. Ranger has been my favourite class and I've played one in every edition since D&D 2nd Edition.

I've wanted to believe the Ranger is already in a good place to play because I don't want to admit my favourite class is not as good as it should be (and therefore will be less fun to play for me).

But N N 959's points are too compelling. To me, the Ranger is missing vital parts of the chassis that make it feel like a Ranger. I want my PC to be the best tracker (Swift Tracker, Ephemeral Tracker etc), but when it has such minimal affect on actual play, and means you cant take cool combat feats, it is too hard to justify.

I desperately hope the Ranger will be given some upgrades for the second printing of the CRB. E.g. make Swift Tracker more compelling as discussed above. Or remove the prerequisite of unrelated lower level Warden Spells when taking higher level Warden Spells (how does Gravity Weapon or Heal Companion have ANY connection to Ephemeral Tracking?!?).

If there is any plan to upgrade the Alchemist in the second printing, the Ranger should get a small upgrade as well. Not saying either will/can happen, just hoping. I feel doing to upgrades to classes will be WAY better than not doing upgrades for any argument of invalidating the first printing.

I won't hold my breath though.

Quote:

2) Strike QD(blade)+ Strike QD(blade) + TT. This deals optimal damage on a flurry ranger without a pet, and is the same as TT + Strike + Strike.

But it's not. My Ranger fights with longsword + Light weapon (agile). So if I start with two weapons, my TT is doing LS + LW. The next two strikes are with the agile weapon to leverage Flurry and MAP. In your example, TT comes at the end of the combo and TT requires a Ranger use two different weapons. So one of those attacks is at -6 instead of -4.

Where does it say TT requires two different weapons?

The Requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand." They can be the same type of weapon. e.g. two sawtooth sabres.

This. Is. EXCELLENT!

While I like the doc VestOfHolding linked for all classes. This one specifically is WAY better as it is grouping the feats by theme, which makes it really easy to plan.

Well done.