You have got to stop taking this so personally. Xenocrat's explaination is far more likely in that if it's so easily fixable then it's not really high priority. I disagree, if that is Paizo's perspective, but we're talking about slight texual mistakes here, not entire books being printed blank. None of this is ideal but this isn't being done out of spite or malicous neglect. Also, I don't think there's as many problems with the PFS-adjusted stuff as you've noted because a lot of these are things like "Runelord players should keep in mind PFS values" or explaining how something works in PFS because it doesn't quite work the same was as a regular campaign.
We don't "know" for certain but it being the gencon release is so likely I'd be shocked if it's anything else.
This will break the game wide open and your players will never ever fail a check in that sill. Since you're coming from first it's really important to note the numbers in pf2e are much more tightly controlled, and even a +1 will have a big impact on whatever you're doing. This isn't to say you can't meddle with the rules or numbers, but with Pf2e it's a really good idea to have a feel for the system first before you do so. Also what Finoan said is vital for meeting the system where it is. I've seen too many people try to brute force their way through combats with triple attacks and it always ends badly.
Yeah the whole point of the errata was so we don't have ad-hoc rules clarifications which, for the record, I support, Sage Advice in dnd proved to me you cannot have one guy just answering random questions when he feels like it. (Apparently you can't twinspell disintegrate because it can target objects). That being said if they're not going to give regular errata I am fine with this one exception because of it's simplicity and because of how fundemental an error it is. We have live with mythic being jank because that's not going to be solved in one go, but oracle having so much amibuguity over a fundemental part of the class is a really big problem. I am "Fine" with almost every other minor error because most of the time it is easy to intuit what is actually supposed to be, but this isn't that. IMO if the president gets set that paizo might answer a rules question when it is a) fundemental to the option affected and b) solvable with a yes/no then I don't think that's going to be detrimental, especially if paizo make it clear this is for exceptional circumstances.
Nope, no balance issues at all. Guns aren't balanced to be any stronger than the next weapon of their tier. Also, simple and martial profiencies already give profiency in those firearms. There's no seperate firearm profiency. So to make firearms more common it is as simple as telling your players to treat any firearm as though they are common!
We have a lot of things planned, including a playtest straight off!! So, we hope you all have a good year with us too ^_^ :0 Starship time, perhaps? Time to engage thrus- uh I mean, waiting
If the choice is between errata and people getting paid a better wage, I'm not going to go to miss the errata lmao. Also you yourself said Paizo have always had a problem with putting out conistent useful errata, so i'm not sure how you're connecting the dots between a union forming four years ago and this.
I think of it the same way we see grifters claiming magic powers in the real world. Some believe their own hype, fully.
Agreed. I try to normally avoid saying things are entirely bad because I think it can get hyperbolic quickly, but this one is pretty bad.
Thanks for the response Maya, but (and I'm speaking to everyone here, not just you or the paizo team) but I'm a little concerned that there isn't an errata for certain issues. The ambiguity over things like Oracle spells really does feel like something that needs addressing. Re: Gaulin
No it does look like an oversight. I suspect it was assumed that martial artist already had the reuglar monastic weapontry feat, and so it wasn't printed for martial artist. For a homerule fix, giving it to martial artist as a second level feat is probably fine enough.
I think "absurdly unprofessional" is a bit much. Calling them rare just sounds like an oversight. They're not doing this to spite us, as annoying as the lack of "weapon" runes for spell attack rolls is sometimes.
For the love of all that is holy do not use LLMs to tell you how a system works. They're prone to just lying at the best of times, much less parsing specific information about a system with similar names and mechanics to other systems. I'm not going to comment on the size thing because this is clearly just going to come down to personal prefrence, but the rules are easily accessible online and you're more than capable of reading them on your own.
I think a lot of the fun of in-game myths like wukong becoming immortal is that they DON'T make sense. It hints that these stories are something mortals tell to explain something, and the "Real" events may be different. Perhaps wukong didn't just delete his name from a book, he used supreme trickery on a cosmic scale to make it so his name was never real, and that's much harder to communicate. Perhaps this is bias on my end, because in my setting I enjoy mixing the way TTRPGs normally do gods, and adding this unknowable aspect on top. My fave little tidbit is introducing doubt as to whether mortals actually ascend, or if their acenction has produced something that thinks it's the mortal. (Yes i stole this from swamp thing)
Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree. Okay but now we're talking about kineticist in general being strong. Kineticist has not entriely overshadowed prior options to the point where you're causing yourself problems by not taking it. I'm not denying it's a stronger-than-baseline ability. It obviously is. My point is that it has not created a problem where anyone who would want to take protector tree is instead coaxed into taking kineticist dedication JUST for timber sentinel. Again to go back to YuriP's point, Strong =/= power creep. It's why I don't think Numbing tonic is a strict upgrade to elixir of life. There are lots of situations where you want to pick one or the other.
I really don't understand what timber sentinel is power creeping. Power creep is when an older option is rendered obsolete by a newer option which is stronger. Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree. Same with numbing tonic. What's that completely replacing? As yuriP said. Something being above baseline =/= power creep. There's above baseline options in the legacy PHB.
This sounds more like a PFS failing than the system itself. We've known from the get-go that mixing SF2e and PF2e will come with issues like flight from level 1. I don't know how much you can argue something is power-creep when it's from an optional ruleset that explicitly flags this as a problem. It'd be another thing if Dragonkin was a printed ancestry in Pf2e.
The beast boy comparision is limited, I just use it to emphasise the difference between barb and a hypothetical shifter. Druids are still spellcasters, so you don't get to commit fully to the fantasy of this blurring of man or beast as you swap forms freely in battle. Untamed form is also very limited, you get a small pool of fixed options, instead of a wider pool of options to pick from. Would my hypothetical shifter be derivative of wild order druid? Yes. But a lot of classes have a decent amount of overlap and I don't see the difference here. If you want to see what I'm on about, Teridax's shifter is essentially my pitch, though i would prefer it remain purely animalistic, at least at first. There's not really any reason for that, I just like the flavour of PF1e's shifter.
Ooh con based shifter sounds like a really fun idea. In my mind, the distinction would be the shifting aspect. Unlike barb, you adopt parts of various animals (or even more) for both encounter and exploration mode. I've seen "Wolverine Vs Beast Boy" used to explain it and it's pretty spot on.
Yeah you're just not getting pf1e levels of caster power in this system. It's kind of one of the goals of the system, to not have that. That being said, it really sounds like your DM set you up for failure here. Learning to play the system at 18th level whilst trying to play a character that's radically changed between systems sounds like hell. If you haven't been completely put off when you're going into a new campaign I would encourage you to keep an open mind. I personally find it a lot more rewarding than pf1e because it's not enough to blast something down with an absurd build, because absurd builds don't really exist. You have to work more with your party, and I really enjoy that. If that doesn't sound appealing, it's probably not the system for you atm.
Is this not just a failure of overdrive as a mechanic instead of assurance? Assurance is useful for skills and situations where you are making a lot of below-level checks. Like, medicine, athletics against weaker enemies, and so on. Push it higher, and it moves out of the space normally occupied by skill feats (Nice to have, not vital) and into centralising terrotory where you essentially have to have it. It's contextual but so are most skill feats.
Your DM is mistaken. Reactive strike doesn't advance your MAP at all. You can make 100 of them, you will never factor in the penalty. This is called out explicitly in reactive strike's description: This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike.
Publishing in one go seems like a better approach. One of the reasons i've never really bothered with APs that i've picked up in humble bundles or whatever is that they feel really disconnected. That being said, not putting the stat blocks is a severe misstep. Running in organised play is pretty stressful, and anything you can do to reduce that load is really important. I would urge reconsidering, or at least adding a free download for each one that gives you the statblocks in one place, since i suspect this is being done for space reasons.
The remasters of existing books are being done in the place of regular reprints. That's why it's been semi-random. All the remastered non-core books are is special errata. In addition We can look at treasure vault and guns and gears to see that anything that's going to require a lot of new or altered text is unlikely. This happens with each book and people need to stop getting their hopes up that the reprint is going to fix whatever pain point they have, because Paizo have been pretty clear that's not what they're doing here.
PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures... It's mentioned in the writeups of the old spell schools in Secrets of Magic.
I wonder if Pathfinder, which ever edition it is on by then, will do something crossover-y with WWII nine years from now. Not to be a party pooper but I hope not. WW2 alternate fiction can cross the line into yikes territoriy really fast, because you get put in a catch 22 where you ignore the holocaust, which is a bad thing to do, or you introduce the holocaust to your TTRPG with dragons and goblins. Neither option is great. |
