Not sure what character I build first (might experiment a bit) but the first character I'm going to play is a halfling wizard. I'm basically converting my character from our ongoing homebrew playtest campaign to PF2.
He's also an excellent crafter thanks to his high intelligence. Also, the Lucky Halfling acestry feat is a almost broken for a crafter since you never roll more than once per day while crafting anyway.
I dont know why people are morally opposed to buying backpacks. A party of 4 with 4 backpacks and nearly capped bulk has 16 bulk worth of storage space to work with, and again thats assuming every single party memeber is capped on regular carrying bulk. Also we dont know the final bulk numbers.
Did I miss something? Backpacks don't increase your carrying capacity in the playtest, they only hold part of the stuff you can carry. Was that changed whe n I wasn't looking?
If you're a rogue with 10+int skills, losing one isn't that bad. Remember, nothing stops you from raising the stat later when you get multiple bumps, so secondary stats could easily take a hit to bump up main ones. Using this doesn't mean the stat has to remain an 8.
Still doesn't change the fact that you lose one skill. Sure, you can raise Int later, but you could do the same if you started at Int 10.
Not really, as long as you match at least one with your stats: a figher/monk only needs a 14 st and 14 dex, a rogue/ranger a 14 dex, an alchemist/wizard only needs a 14 int and a bard/sorcerer only needs a 14 cha.
I meant "need" as in "function properly" not as in "meeting requirements". Sure, you can be a Fighter->Wizard with Int 14 but if you want to make real use of your wizard spells, you need int.
I like that it costs 2 to get one, but in reality this just means the vast majority of characters will have 8 Cha again.
The second flaw makes that much less likely. Dumping Cha if you don't use Cha-based skills is easy enough. But beyond that? What are you going to dump? At the very least it would cost you a trained skill.
I could see pure casters dumping strength, but then again, casters are pretty SAD anyway and don't really need the extra boost.
Multiclass characters also tend to need too many different abilities to afford dumping two of them.
I know, but that's not what Zythraen was referring to.
The post I quoted spoke of applying the dwarfs floating flaw to Con and THEN applying one of he extra flaws to Con, which implies dwarves having afloating flaw even without the new +2 flaws/+1 boost option.
the sickly dwarf above inherently gets +2 CON, then they apply their floating flaw so they are, so far, net 0 for this step, then apply one of their 2 extra flaws to end up -2 for this step of character generation.
What? Dwarves don't have a floating flaw, as far as I'm aware. No ancestry does. It's always a fixed one (charisma for a dwarf) isn't it?
As revealed during the Know Direction Podcast, you can choose to get two additional flaws during character creation.
These flaws must be in different ability scores UNLESS you pick a score that's boosted by your ancestry. So you could play a sickly Dwarf with Con 8.
For these additional flaws, you get an extra boost which can be placed in any ability score that doesn't already get a fixed boost from your ancestry, including the one getting the basic flaw. So you can have a level 1 gnome with strength 18 by placing your free boost and the extra boost into strength.
It also seems to be missing the rule saying you can craft items below your level in less than 4 days.
And I don't think we've seen the table showing the cost reduction for additional days spent crafting. Those numbers were a bit too low for my liking in the playtest, so I hope they've been adjusted.
Ignoring the search for #85 for a second, I just realized that there are less then 7 weeks until release (YAY!). Didn't they promise to talk a lot about second edition once it is done?
Other than the "100 Spoiler Hunt of Madness" and a couple of tidbits revealed during PaizoCon, we haven't really gotten anything, did we? I mean, the blogs about the regions and stuff are nice and all but I was hoping for something more substential rules-wise.
I was kind of expecting blogpost like those leading up to the Playtest. Shouldn't that start about now? Will we get any at all?
EDIT: Went through the old blog posts. They started revealing stuff about PF1 in may, about 14 weeks before release.
Wait, what? Did someone at Paizo just know there was going to be a thread? Because I didn't make the thread until after I heard about the cards, and it took me a little while because the Paizo forums were down temporarily. XD
Jason basically said "Collect all 100 spoilers on our forums until I'm back in the office and I'll drop another 100."
Note that Sorcerer (either base or multiclass) can get some extra oomph out of this in two ways: (1) At the cost of some versatility, if she lines up her two spellcasting traditions: because the proficiency is based on tradition, not class, she can use the higher proficiency granted by her base class; (2) By lining up with Bard or Cleric to get Charisma synergy.
That's a good point, actually!
When the multiclass rules for the playtest were explained for the first time, I considered an arcane Sorcerer multiclassed to Wizard. Use Sorc to cover your all-day spells and Wizard for the more situational spells. Seemed like pretty great idea until the Playtest ways released and sorcs were stuck with only 6 class feats, which made full caster multiclassing extremely painful.
In the end, I went with Wizard>Cleric. But if all classes do indeed get 10 or 11 class feats, the original build could easily become the ultimate arcane caster.
At 14th, to-hit has gone to +22
Ability score booting items were level 14 in the playtest. So one could maybe get another +1 attack from Anklets of Alacrity. There might also be some other items (goggles or something like that) giving an attack bonus to throwing bombs.
Come to think of it, do bombs still use dex to hit? With cantrips using the casting ability score of the caster, bombs could maybe use int? Otherwise they'd be the only "supernatural" attack not using the caster ability score, which would be a bit sad.
Mark Seifter wrote:
So that longbow is wrong, it should say volley 30 feet (as the erinyes in my Unreality Incursion game can tell you, or the FIGHTERS from FIGHTER SQUAD! who also had longbows). I can attest that 30 foot volley worked really well, way better than the clunky 50 foot volley.
I can see how 30 feet are much more manageable than 50. Still not a fan of volley. It's the only negative weapon trait (in the playtest at least).
Looking for a nice weapon to use, finding the Longbow and then realizing it's the only weapon that has a build-in penalty feels really really bad.
I much prefered the solution of getting rid of volley and giving the shortbow agile instead, which was brought up during the playtest.
We have confirmation that there's a wizard feature called "Arcane School".
It might just be the name of a thesis that bascally says "Pick one school of magic and get one additional spell slot per level that can only be used to memorize spells of that school".
Though I admit that it seems unlikely that the Linked Focus feat from the spoiler wouldn't list "arcane school thesis" as prerequsite in this case.
Anyway, I hardly ever use quick study on my playtest wizard and I hope some other theses will provide interesting and equally powerful alternatives. Also, Quick Study (or Spell Substiturion, if you will) seems a bit less "must have" if you can get situational spells on re-usable wands. Or pick up feats like Scroll Savant.
What if the base wizard (before thesis) only has 3 slots per level (like a druid or cleric) and a single use of arcane focus?
The other theses could be the old school specializations and the universalist's multi-use arcane focus.
Would you still pick Spell Substitution? Over a 33% increase in spell slots, potentially including an additional 10th level slot, which - judging by the sorcerer - is worth a 20th level feat on its own?
Summon monster got really weak at high levels in the playtest. The stuff you could summon with a 10th level summon monster was barely able to hit a level 20 creature and could hit real epic threats like the Jabberwock on a nat20. That's pretty damn weak for a 20th level ability, that costs your level 20 feat and is usable once per day.
It looks like 10th level slots are no longer gated behind a feat, but I still hope they improved the summoning spells significantly. The dragon summon does look a bit disappointing in this regard, to be honest.
I am very curious about #45, the "Cloistered Cleric", as a "Cleric Doctrine". I don't remember cleric doctrines from the playtest. I am very curious to learn more about those, which makes me especially curious to learn what #46 might be since we have not seen that one revealed yet. I am hoping it might be another cleric doctrine. I want to learn more about those. I have always found the cleric to be a boring class, but the idea of cleric doctrines is making me excited to learn more. I am hoping there are at least a few to sink my teeth into, like maybe "templar", "warpriest", "inquisitor", "oracle", "shaman", and such. Cloistered Cleric is clearly a very spell-focused doctrine, but maybe there are more combat-focused, investigative, diplomatic, sneaky, healer, and anti-monster doctrines.
All classes except fighter and monk are confirmed to have class paths similar to the druid orders. Doctrine seems to be the name of the cleric's path.
And warpriest* was already confirmed to be one of the available doctrines.
Warpriest as in "martial focused cleric". Can't remember if "Warpriest" was the actual name.
The existence of 12th and 16th level sorcerer feats hopefully means they got rid of the caster class's "feat gap" at those levels...
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
I can't say for certain, but it also seemed that spells and powers are no longer in the same section, I that would be perfect. I saw no power in the spells screenshot.
I think that was confirmed some time ago. Power are no longer mixed into the spell descriptions. Not sure if they just have a seperate secrion of the spells chapter or if they are listed in their respective class's description inthe class chapter.
The class chapter is about 180 pages long, which is 80 more than it was in the playtest. That means they either added the powers in this chapter or they added A LOT of new feats and options.
This includes Wands (though we don't know how their price has changed). Once per day is a lot better than a consumable.
Ignoring the extremely risky overcharge thing, a wand is basically a pearl of power. It does come with more and less flexibility. More because it allows you to cast a spell you haven't prepared and less because you can't use it for different spells like you could when using a pearl.
Kind of makes me curious to see what they did with staves...
Anyway, if pearls of power are any indication, wands of low level spells are probably a good and cheap-ish option to get some more spells per day, while wands of higher level spells (5th level+) quickly become very expensive.
But yeah, other than the as of yet unknown pricing, I agree that once per day is A LOT better than consumable.
Just wanted to say that Jason confirmed during the rewatch of the stream that Touch AC is completely gone. (proof.)
That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out!
Kinda makes you wonder how that influences stuff like armors. If light armor still only goes up to 2 AC, losing potential additional TAC as a potential distinguishing (and balancing) factor looks like ot will result in either redundancy or a clear "best" armor for any situation.
Joe M. wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't look in that moment, but I figured it would be a d6. Next best option would be a d8, but if you add the splash damage (and the potential for persistent damage on a crit, should that still be possible), acid splash would greatly outperform most other damaging cantrips.
1. Wrong forum. This is the playtest forum.
2. Adding a cure to a cure potion should work. But it's probably not worth it.
3. Enhanced Cures does not affect potions crafted by the oracle. Also, crafting the potions at caster level 9 would significantly increase their cost. That 9th level cure moderate + cure light potion would cost 1350 gp to craft and heal 3d8+14 hp. For that much gold you can craft three cure serious wound potions, healing 3d8+5 each, and have 225 gp left.
4. If you instead go with their minimum caster level (1 for cure light, 3 for cure medium) you end up with a potion that heals 3d8+4 and costs 350 gp. Cure serious heals 3d8+5 and costs 375 to craft. Very small difference for investing a feat.
My main point is that by putting everyone on the same +level track with TEML modifiers, Paizo's already removed what was basically the only reason to have a separate, lower version of AC for spells to target. And by removing TAC, you give heavy armor a reason to exist. The difference would be "Instant high AC, but has penalties" vs "You need to invest in your Dex to max out your AC, but you don't have those penalties". But because those penalties don't include "Does not work against some attacks", they become more bearable.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you that heavy armor is in a pretty bad shape right now. I'm just not sure that getting rid of TAC altogether is the best solution. It SHOULD be harder to hit an agile monk with a touch than a heavily armored fighter. Unless we suddenly retcon magic being unable to pierce mundane steel, so that full-plate will protect against touch attacks. Then again, paizo already went halfway there with heavy armor having any TAC bonus at all.
I don't really care whether there's TAC in the game or not. But simply getting rid of it without taking a very careful look at what it affects would be a bad choice. I'm pretty sure casters would stop using touch spells because their chance to hit wouldn't be good enough to warrant the use of a spellslot. And even Cantrips become useless again if your chance to hit is at 25% or something like that.
I haven't seen too many Wizards being played besides my own one, but from what I can tell players prefer Ray of Frost to Telekinetic Projectile since the slighly higher damage is not worth going up against additional AC.
If they remove TAC, they need to do something about caster touch accuracy. Badly. This makes your solution much more complicated than "Remove TAC. That's it.". Not impossible, mind you. Just more complicated.
Not a good solution, in my opinion. Going against full AC instead of the slighly lower TAC is pretty hard for casters. They usually have a lower attack bonus not just because of BAB/Proficiency but also because they lack the ability to max out Str/Dex.
Their proficiency for touch attacks increases more slowly than most martial character's weapon proficiency. Casters also usually prefer ranged touch attacks, which often means the enemy has screening and can't be flanked for an easy -2 AC. This effectively puts a caster at -3 attack compared to a martial melee character. This -3 is a huge penalty not only to hit but also to your crit chance in PF2.
Ranged martials have similar problems, of course, but they attack multiple times per round and don't spend a valuable limited per-day resource that's lost on a miss.
If they remove TAC completely, they need to make up for it somehow. Allowing casters to use their casting stat for spell attack rolls or something like that.
I think you're in the wrong subforum. Are you talking about Pathfinder 1 or the Playtest?
Playtest: Casters don't get bonus spells from high ability scores.
PF1: A 4th level wizard with a +3 Int modifier would have four 1st level spells and three 2nd level spells. Add one spell per level if you're a specialist as per the arcane school class ability.
Volcanic Storm is a 4th level slot and definitely NOT a cantrip. Don't rely on some app without double checking the rules on a more reliable source.
Yes as I said it started to get a better benefit from using the 3 actions to attack once you get Dueling Dance (but again that is a level 12 feat) but my concern was that the bonus from the feat doesn't really come into action before you are quite a bit higher level than you were when you took it (which I don't think feels good).
The idea is probably to give you options and make you think about your turns. If you're surrouned by enemies, using two normal attacks (or rather one strike and any press) + Dueling Parry is probably a good idea. But if you're face to face with a dangerous enemy who is already injured, forgoing the AC bonus from Parry and instead do a DHA + Strike/Press turn might be a better idea.
Telling the rogue to attack doesn't require concentration. It's not even an action. Not even a free action anymore. That seems to be quite different from spending a whole action to concentrate on a summoning spell.
If just talking to someone can make you visible because it could lead to someone getting hurt, you wouldn't be allowed to breath (butterfly effect, anyone?), move (earthquake/landslide) or even exist.
Also, unlike a summoned creature, the rogue decides for himself if he actually wants to attack. You might as well tell the enemy to kill himself. You wouldn't become visible just because he could do it .
I'd rule anything that doesn't even require an action to be non-hostile.
That's probably something to take up with your GM. I personally would say it breaks invisibility.
Invisibility breaks on Acting Hostile and Acting Hostile states any action that "can harm or damage another creature, whether direcltly or indirectly". Since you tell the monster to attack the target, which "can harm or damage" it, I don't see why it wouldn't break the Invis.
It's just a guess, but I'd wager Scribe Scroll was a late-ish addition to the game. Like someone in Paizo's internal testing games suddenly going "Why can't my cleric scribe scrolls without investing in crafting?"
Would explain why it has a different wording from the other crafting feats and is missing in some references.
Dr Styx wrote:
Where do you get this from?
Scribe Scroll only allows you to use the approrpiate knowledge skill instead of the Crafting skill to use the Craft activity. The Craft activity comes with its own list of requirements, including having the approptiate formula. Nothing in the Scribe Scroll feat says you ignore any of those requirements.
As for the formulas, I think you're supposed to need the formulas for the items as they are listed in the treasure table starting page 349. So you'd need the formula "Scroll of a 1st-level spell" for all 1st level spell scrolls, not one formula per spell. It's not clear in the rules by any means and I actually made a topic about it here.
But anyway, I don't see how Scribe Scroll would allow you to craft scrolls without any formulas.
Wizards (and alchemists) are the best crafters in the game. There's really not much keeping you from raising Crafting and your high Int will make you pretty good at it.
So I'd say pck up Magical Crafting instead, which includes all scrolls.
Only possible reasons to use Scribe Scroll instead are
- You're a Wis-based caster and want to use your Wis-based skill (Religion/Nature) instead of Craft.
Maybe save some money and get some ranged touch cantrip instead? Reach Metamagic with Chill Touch works ok-ish. Getting Ray of Frost from your Ancestry (Elf, Human, Gnome) is also nice. Bring a crossbow along for the (in my experience) rare cases when the enemy is outside of cantrip range.
A good cantrip will carry you until your spell points/spells catch up and you can easily use it as a fallback even on higher levels, whereas any ranged weapon you buy become useless rather quickly unless you invest money in upgrades.
If you can spare a class feat, Druid Dedication will give you two cantrips. You could pick up Ray of Frost and Electric Arc. The latter will deal up to 2d6+2xWis damage (albeit split against two targets) making it the most damaging cantrip and it's often better to deal guaranteed damage - even if it's only half due to a successful save - than risking to deal no damage at all with a ranged attack.
So do we know which one it is? Does Weapon Surge give an additional +1 item bonus on an Expert Weapon? So effectively you would have a +2 item bonus with a single additional die of damage on the weapon?
RAI? Most likely no. I'm pretty sure Weapon Surge is meant to increase the weapon's potency rune by 1 (or setting it to 1 if it doesn't have any) and the rune's item bonus doesn't stack with the expert item bonus.
So it's most likely just poor wording.
It's all about the trigger. Only free actions and reactions have a trigger. If it would have the normal action symbol, it couldn't have a trigger, making it harder to tell when the ability is usable.
To reiterate: The TRIGGER is the free action. This free action THEN allows you to add another action to gain the ability's benefit.
Note that I'm not saying this system is good or bad, I'm just saying this is how it currently works.
The free action is only there because it's the only way to add a trigger to an ability without making it a reaction. So if you meet the trigger's requirements, you can use the free action to trigger Healing Hands which then allows you to add a Verbal Casting action to increase the amount of healing.
Healing Font doesn't increase healing. I assume you mean Healer's Blessing. It's also listed as free action so it can have a trigger. But unlike Healing hands, it doesn't say that you must add any additional actions to use its effect.
Bottom line: Your DM is correct.
Also note that you can't use the same trigger to use a free action more than once, so if two free action abilities have the same trigger, they can't be used at the same time. Fortunately, Healing Hands and Healer's Blessing do not have the same trigger. Hands is triggered when you start casting and Blessing is triggered when you finish the cast and actually heal someone.
Is there any reason to use Bracers of Armor over leather armor that I'm missing?
They provide the same bonus and neither option has any penalty once the leather armor is Expert Quality or better.
Bracers pull ahead by a single point of AC if your character is dex focused AND you reach level 20. They also have less Bulk (L instead of 1).
On the other hand, the leather armor is quite a bit cheaper and can hold property runes. It's also available/craftable one level earlier.
Especially if you have a crafter in the party, he could cover the whole party with just the armor potency rune formulas instead of learning the formulas for the runes AND the bracers.
So, other than requiring proficiency and higher Bulk, is there any downside to leather armor I'm missing? Well, and except stuff like Monk styles not working in Armor, obviously.
Yes it stacks. It turns a non magical weapon into a +1, a +1 weapon into a +2, a +2 weapon into a +3, a +3 weapon into a +4 and a +4 weapon into a +5.
The Magic Weapon spell on te other hand only works on non-magical weapons, turning them into +1 weapons. It has no effect at all on a weapon that's already magical.