Wow... No more core "Paladin?!". Bold! I like it! "Divine Champion" sounds great.
Giving Wizard Quick Prep? I love Wizards, they're my favorite class, but making them more like the Sorcerer in regards to casting doesn't fit right as a "fix" to issues presented. I actually think this makes the wizard more powerful. The reason I took Quick Prep was because it was eminently powerful! Like I said Wizards are my favorite but sorcs should remain the versatile casters. Wouldn't just giving Wizards another spell slot be better? I'm wondering if the fix was made due to faulty survey assumptions, something that can easily happen to the best of us!
I'm just not feeling the barbarian rage changes, either. Doesn't seem like that big of a difference round to round but then now there's a DC tracking factor. Hmm :-/
The highest level person in the group is level 13 the rest of the party should also be level 13.
This certainly isn't a rule. Even just looking at player characters, different groups do it different ways, and even if a group decides that all the PCs in a party will always have the same level, that certainly doesn't mean that any NPCs working with the party will also be at that level.
Well the op has stated its a 12 person PC party so there are 12 pcs not the party and some npcs.
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.
.
Everyone should be able to two-weapon fight. But only some should have absolute mastery with ease: The fighter. However, rogues and rangers should also be able to become masters but not at the same speed as fighters. Just like everyone should be able to pick locks and disarm traps, just not as good or fast as a rogue. Otherwise, why have classes at all.
I am very sorry to write this, but it's the truth.
Pathfinder 2.0 is trying to keep up with the success of D&D 5e, but it's failing very badly.
I am 43 years old and i can say that i pretty much played all the big Rpgs.
We stopped playing the Playtest after chapter 2, because it wasn't any fun to play at all.
We had all different kinds of players involved, from 17 year olds to 50+, from people that never played before to veterans of two dozen systems and everyone agreed: Pathfinder 1.0 & Starfinder are great, the Pathfinder Playtest isn't.
Your experiences are far from universal. Of the two playtest groups I've participated in (12 4-hour sessions so far), I've watched curmudgeons dead set against a new edition transform into outright fans. Of the nine of us in total, ages 30 to 60, many have been gaming since the red box and we see room for improvement, but are pleased to have a chassis not plagued so heavily with the problems we've been enduring, or house ruling, for the past two decades. As far as solid foundations to build on go, PF2 is proving capable.
THIS. When the rules we've been using for ten years have pages of house rules, it's time to rethink.
I think we need more of this. This is a playtest, and things are fluid. Nothing is perfect or set in stone.
Devs getting on and "defending" choices and decisions in a thoughtful and helpful way will only make this game stronger.
There are a lot of misconceptions out there. Lord knows one of my most difficult tasks with this playtest in the ability to set aside my hard wired knowledge of PF1 from the new rule set. It's very nice indeed to have devs reiterate things to me as a veteran player. I'm mature enough to handle responses and see the error of my ways sometimes.
I hope Jason and other devs up their response rates. It will only make the game better by increasing transparency and engaged dialogue with everyone.
Contingency King Irovetti used a scroll to cast contingency: if he ever takes more than 10 points of damage from a single attack, a dimension door whisks him away (in this case, to his den in area T1).
That's not a very big number. A CL 8 fireball coming off the wizard cohort averages 14 on a successful save. Takes him out of the fight for a couple rounds if he DDoor's right back, longer if he needs/has used his high-level slots. But considering he put the effort into setting up a contingency tied to under 5% of his hit points, he might not come back at all.
I caught that. Not sure why the conversion had such a small number for him to sustain before fleeing... I plan on making the contingency when he gets to 20hp or less
BTW, the adventure path for 4 players had Irovetti as a CR 17 and that includes a CR 14 Ogre Mage, With, 6 wardens AND 4 Troll Guards... All at once, according to AP.
Here's the 6-player conversion stats for Irovetti. I know the encounter for 5 PCs would be nearly impossible, but they've got 3 more NPCs built as PCs and two leadership feat PCs, one of which is a hill giant. So shouldn't those be included in figuring the party's level?
KING CASTRUCCIO IROVETTI:
CR 18
XP 153,600
Male human inveigler bard 11/fighter 6 (Advanced Bestiary 153)
CE Medium humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft., see invisibility; Perception +18
DEFENSE
AC 36, touch 20, flat-footed 31 (+11 armor, +5 deflection, +4 Dex, +1 dodge, +5 natural)
hp 201 (17 HD; 11d8+6d10+119)
Fort +18, Ref +19, Will +15; +4 vs. bardic performance, language-dependent, and sonic, +2 vs. fear
Defensive Abilities bravery +2
OFFENSE
Speed 60 ft.
Melee rod of razors +26/+26/+21/+16 (1d10+17/19-20/x3)
Ranged flechettes +25/+25/+20/+15 (1d8+13/19-20/x3)
Space 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with rod of razors)
Special Attacks bardic performance 36 rounds/day (move action; countersong, dirge of doom, distraction, fascinate, inspire competence +4, inspire courage +3, inspire greatness, suggestion), charming falsehood
Spells Known (CL 11th; concentration +20)
4th (4/day) - dimension door, dominate person (DC 24), greater invisibility,
3rd (6/day) - charm monster (DC 23), displacement, phantom steed, scrying
2nd (6/day) - cat’s grace, cure moderate wounds, detect thoughts (DC 21), glitterdust (DC 21), suggestion (DC 22)
1st (8/day) - alarm, charm person (DC 21), cure light wounds, expeditious retreat, grease (DC 20), unseen servant
0 (at will) - dancing lights, detect magic, light, mage hand, message, prestidigitation
TACTICS
Before Combat Irovetti’s tactics are unchanged from those in the Adventure Path module.
During Combat His tactics during the battle are also unchanged from those presented in the Adventure Path module.
Morale This remains the same as presented in the Adventure Path module.
STATISTICS
Str 18, Dex 18, Con 20, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 28
Base Atk +14; CMB +18; CMD 36
Feats Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Deceitful, Dodge, Extend Spell, Extra Performance, Improved Feint, Improved Iron Will, Iron Will, Mobility, Skill Focus (Perform [sing]), Spell Focus (enchantment), Toughness, Weapon Focus (rod of razors), Weapon Specialization (rod of razors)
Skills Bluff +28, Intimidate +24, Knowledge (arcana) +16, Knowledge (local) +16, Knowledge (nobility) +16, Linguistics +7, Perception +18, Perform (dance) +23, Perform (oratory) +28, Perform (sing) +34, Ride +13, Sleight of Hand +19, Use Magic Device +28
Languages Common, Giant, Hallit, Skald, Sylvan; tongues
SQ armor training 1, bardic knowledge +5, contingency, hidden enchantment, improved resources, jack-of-all-trades (use any skill), lore master 2/day, permanent spells, taken to the grave, truth be told, undetectable alignment, undetectable thoughts, versatile performance (oratory, sing, dance)
Combat Gear potions of lesser restoration (4), scroll of heal, scroll of restoration, scroll of teleport, wand of hold monster (CL 10th, 13 charges); Other Gear +5 moderate fortification mithral breastplate, rod of razors, amulet of natural armor +5, boots of speed, cloak of resistance +5, ring of protection +5, master key (unlocks all locks in the palace), mindrender baton
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Charming Falsehood (Su) Once per day, Irovetti can tell a lie so convincing it enchants a single creature that hears it. He need not be able to see the target of his lie or have line of effect to it, but if the target cannot hear the lie, this use of the ability is wasted. The lie must be one that would cause the target to view King Irovetti as a trusted friend or that would make it likely to follow his orders, but it can be as outlandish as he wishes. If the target hears the lie, it must attempt a Sense Motive check opposed by King Irovetti’s Bluff check. A creature that fails this check by less than 5 is affected as though by the spell charm monster (caster level equals Irovetti’s character level). Failure by 5 or more means that Irovetti has dominated the target as though using the spell dominate monster (caster level equals Irovetti’s character level). Charming falsehood is a sonic, mind-affecting, charm effect.
Contingency King Irovetti used a scroll to cast contingency: if he ever takes more than 10 points of damage from a single attack, a dimension door whisks him away (in this case, to his den in area T1).
Hidden Enchantment (Su) When Irovetti uses any effect or spell that mimics charm monster, dominate monster, or any similar effect, spells such as detect magic cannot detect the effect. Furthermore, any Sense Motive check made to determine influence over the target takes a -15 penalty. True seeing and other magic that reveals magical effects or determines the truth of the situation work normally.
Improved Resources Not only does King Irovetti have the resources of a PC as regards his gear, but his ability scores use a 20 - point build.
Permanent Spells King Irovetti has used scrolls of permanency to gain the following permanent effects: darkvision, see invisibility,and tongues.
Taken to the Grave (Su) If speak with dead is used on the corpse or head of King Irovetti, he tells nothing but lies. Only a wish or miracle spell used to mimic a speak with dead spell can pry the truth from the dead body of Castruccio Irovetti.
Truth be Told (Su) Magic used to determine whether Irovetti is telling the truth reveals his lies only if he would wish his words to be construed as a lie. This ability affects even spells such as detect lie and more powerful spells such as wish or miracle. Other creatures that are asked about the truth of what King Irovetti says can represent the truth normally, so spells such as commune allow characters to discover the truth, provided the creatures interviewed are privy to that truth.
Undetectable Alignment (Su) Magical effects used to determine King Irovetti’s alignment automatically reveal it to be the same as that of the creature doing the detecting. If Irovetti is aware of the attempt, he can instead cause the magic to reveal any alignment he chooses. This ability also protects him from spells that detect only certain alignment components, such as detect evil. It defeats even the clerical version of true seeing, but a wish or miracle spell used to mimic true seeing or the various alignment detection spells reveals the truth.
Undetectable Thoughts (Su) Whenever a creature attempts to detect King Irovetti’s thoughts (with a detect thoughts spell, for example), he is immediately aware of the attempt and can cause the effect to reveal any thoughts he chooses. A wish or miracle spell used to mimic detect thoughts or a similar effect reveals the truth.
I'm preparing my Kingmaker group to fight King Irrovetti and his Entourage.
The PCs are in a large meeting room with their own entourage and were just informed by Irovetti that he is arresting them and the PCs want to fight.
Here's the PCs. I want to make it challenging and want to bad careful not to make it too difficult. You'll see why when looking at their entourage:
PC Thirri, Barbarian 12
NPC bodyguard for Thirri, Jamie, Fighter 10
PC Astrid, Cleric 12 (Calistria, not a heal bit)
NPC bodyguard for Astrid, Oksana, Fighter 10
NPC Significant Other, Oberyn, Aldori Swordlord, Fighter 10
PC Balbor, Bard 11
NPC bodyguard for Balbor, Baristan, Fighter 10
NPC Leadership character, Munguk, Hill Giant, Advanced Template, 1 class fighter. CR 9
PC Bariel, Druid 10
PC Meliodas, Fighter 11
NPC Leadership character, Liz, Wizard 8
This isn't a normal setup and encounter, we wanted a long, epic combat. I've been using the 6-player conversion this far and will use that for stats enemy stats. The players have done very well the far in the AP, only having difficulties with undead (of which there are online on this combat).
Would it just be simpler and balancing to have the average CRs match? For instance, if APR/CR of PC group is 10.2, will making Irovetti's group APR/CR 10.2 be balanced? It appears Irovetti's average is 8.4...
The length of the adventure. My game was 4 hours in and the PCs were just reaching the tomb and had not even entered it! My players and I thought these adventures would be short, similar to society scenarios, but the length alone makes this long. Add to that the general lack of split-second rules decisions and having to look rules up using a format that is not that great makes the game run twice as long. My players are not in favor of continuing with the playtest, unfortunately, and would rather get back to the Kingmaker AP. I hate this, but the playtest may be better served by hardcore players who have the time, brains, and motivation to continue, especially now that the adventures are getting higher level, which will really slow down play I imagine.
The story is great. The overall adventure is great. However, the combat just took far too long and hurt the fun experience, not to mention the resonance point issue.
I really like that the characters had a chance to spot the Ankheg's nest; but it wasn't clear whether or not the PCs also had to spot the quicksand, because when they spotted the nest, the doubled back and went around to avoid the next- it was unclear if the quicksand was part of the Ankheg encounter or a separate encounter far from the nest. I really like the simplicity of the monster stats in that they offer a couple of options without overloading the statblock with unnecessary junk. The monsters certainly hit harder and more often than PF1, which makes it more challenging. However, being PF1 players, the PCs are so used to mostly dominating they are having a difficult time with these new rules. I am all for pairing back from PF1 the munchkin syndrome, but when level 4 characters go down so early in the adventure the game bogs down and becomes un-fun (I'm going to copyright this phrase). The characters were scared to death to run out of resonance points and really hated this mechanic. The ranger, due to low charisma, couldn't even take a healing potion without making the check. Also, his animal companion could not drink a potion?! This is ridiculous. We could not find if a creature didn't have resonance points to begin with whether they could even drink a potion. I allowed it, but it failed its check and could not be healed. This just seems punitive.
This may have been a product of the rules still being new, but the confusion on where to find certain rules as written, combined with the difficulty of the encounters, made for a rough time for the PCs. I believe the difficulty stems in large part from the poor tactics and lack of rules knowledge- the poor tactics leading to harm and lack of knowledge leading to frustration and ultimately simply being glad when the party TPKd.
I believe the encounters should be set up more for those who have less experience playing. For example, the gnoll encampment: I had the scorpion hiding in the shade of one of the tents, while the 2 gnolls were laying about near one of the tents. They did not initially spot the PCs; the PCs moved up to investigate, then left. Upon leaving, they failed their stealth and the gnolls saw them and I had them go to the bank of the river and fire arrows. The text did not provide much instruction on their actions. As an experienced GM I know how to infer things, but I'm certain new players would not. All of the encounters that were encountered took far too long and got boring. So boring, in fact, nobody had fun. Granted, the tactics of the 4 PCs were not that great, but the gnolls were hitting hard and, sensically, stayed on the bank firing arrows while the scorpion closed in to melee. The wizard, being played by someone with zero wizard experience, was knocked unconscious due to being too close to the fray. The manticore battle also took long and was boring for the PCs. They mostly had to shoot arrows which is just boring. The Ranger lost their animal companion. When they reached the cliffside encounter with Zafka, the difficulty of that encounter was so great that when the barbarian was knocked unconscious, the other 3 fell rather quickly.
Can spellcasters hold a spell? It’s unclear. For instance, produce flame. Can a wizard cast this and hold it until next turn?
Some guidance on the DCs on some of the skills is necessary, especially Handle Animal.
My players and I do not do secret rolls- I let the players roll unless there is a very specific, narrative reason for not doing so.
As I’ll stat elsewhere, it appears Paizo has formed In Pale Mountain’s Shadow to see how less maps and more encounters does, especially since they ask this question in the survey and mention it in the scenario. Lessening encounters is always a boon. Providing maps for the GM is always a boon which allows them (me) to save time. This would also be an opportunity for Paizo to sell maps. I’d imagine smaller maps (not those clunky 6x3 map packs) that have a single encounter could sell well.
I ignored most of the map directions for the encounters. I instead just pulled out my purchased maps and used those, modifying them somewhat. There was no way I was going to go by the detailed “put 5x5 trap here just past x spot near river” wordage to draw my map. I did draw the manticore fight, ignoring most details given on that one, too.
We had trouble finding rules for how long demoralize through intimidation lasted for.
We do not like the death and dying rules, even the updated version. For GMs, keeping track of a DC for the player who was knocked unconscious is annoying; for players, they said they hate that one creature could do all the damage to them while another creature could come over and tap them with a weapon and knock them unconscious, with that creature’s DC being the recovery check. Moving the knocked-out player’s initiative is also annoying.
We could not find any rules on the range of scent. We assumed 30 feet.
Does the Ranger’s animal companion also die upon reaching Dying 4?
Using the word “bolster” is not intuitive. For example, if using the feat Battle Medic, the subject you’ve used it on is bolstered. That implies a benefit. However, bolstered is a negative in thsi instance because you can’t use it again on that creature.
Since the survey asked if we’d rather have more encounters over more maps, I’d opt for the maps. More encounters really slows down gameplay and makes the game boring. I’ve also noticed the lessening of encounters in society play and the play has been fantastic. I believe lessening the combat encounters is beneficial. This is a roleplaying game, so there should be an equal amount ro roleplaying with the combat. In combat, players have to sit and wait for their turn, which provides them an opportunity for distraction which slows the game down.
If a whole team of rule lawyers is needed to figure out how to use a simple, first level feat, then it might need a rewrite.
Please, in the monster stat blocks, list out iterative attacks with penalties included.
I don’t understand the lack of coup de grace actions on an unconscious creature. Armor should have zero impact on this.
I also don’t understand the physical armor adding to touch AC. If the point is to offer a barrier, then why wouldn’t someone just buy a snuggie and wear it. That’s a barrier but wouldn’t offer any AC protection.
PC ability scores are starting to appear very similar among those of the same class. I’m not sure this is a good thing.
I’m quickly not becoming a fan of perception being such an aggregate skill for so many checks. Appraising? Silly.
A druid needs to have wildshape at first level. That’s part of the fun of a druid. It’d be ok to nerf it at level 1, but at least make it available.
Nobody likes the fact that you “grow” more elvish, or more dwarvish. Becoming more like the ancestry you already are doesn’t make sense.
I think more than anything, there needs to be a way to expand your signature skills, and have at least some choice in them at level 1. Signature skills aren't a bad idea if they have a little more flexibility.
“Negative healing” not defined, although I know what this means. A new player does not.
I want to reiterate one important point before closing: lessen the number of combat encounters. 5 hours of play is probably the max for a group to have fun with. If there are too many encounters, this becomes UN FUN. Every single game I’ve played in over the years have been very fun (in society play) when there were 3 or less combat encounters. This allows time for roleplaying (frankly, if your group doesn’t enjoy roleplaying, than the GM can simply increase the monster stats or add monsters and encounters.) In my long experience, the more players have “downtime” between turns of combat, the more they become bored, distracted, and uncaring, especially when higher levels see increases in numbers of combatants. Listen, I really enjoy combat encounters and so do my players, but not 8 of them.
To close, my group will probably not participate in the next part of Doomsday Dawn unless there are some significant changes. Not because we are mad at Paizo( we love Paizo) but because we aren't having fun doing it. Listen, we all realize 100% this is a playtest and meant to stress the system, but if people aren’t having fun doing it, Paizo will be losing out a bit (of course, maybe it should just be hardcore gamers stressing the system!). I would love to be a part of a hardcore playtest group, but my players are unfortunately not this type, and if they aren’t having fun, I’m not having fun. Once again before the hate comes, we know this is a playtest, but if people aren’t having fun doing it then obviously there is a large chunk of feedback paizo won’t be getting. I hope the chinks can be worked out and will pay attention to all the feedback of the 3rd part and eagerly await the twitch stream updates, which are great. Jason is doing one hell of a job as well as everyone else, Mark included who lives on the forum apparently.
P.S.- just read that the PFS Playtest scenarios are a great way to playtest without “playtesting” and when the new updates are out, I’ll be trying one of these for my groups.
