Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park 3,341 posts (11,134 including aliases). 7 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters. 16 aliases.
⦵
Bret Indrelee
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park
aka BretI
2 people marked this as a favorite.
One thing that I would like to add is that the new sections for each of the specials were at the end of each special. I think this was a big contributor to the the player fatigue. They had already been playing for a long time before they saw any new content.
I have not yet finished the final section in any of A/B/C as a player. There just wasn't enough time to do it at mid to high level. I have played and GMed all three parts so far.
I agree with everyone saying that cutting in the middle of a battle is extremely frustrating. I would love it if specials would have the transitions be a little more flexible. I love how it was done in the SFS Scoured Stars Invasion special. That solution wouldn't work here, but perhaps you could have a transitional section so that people have time to finish the current encounter they are in the middle of?
Dumping in PF2 is just not using a boost in the attribute. At worst, the penalty is -1 for normal play.
Yes, you can take a Flaw but that isn’t something encouraged by the rules.
Still, their assumptions with the skill DC table don’t seem to take into account that characters can’t be legendary at all skills nor have very high scores in all six attributes. Even at high levels, I expect many will still have attributes of 10.
The GM is free to do this with any given encounter. If 2e's combat balance crumbles apart the GM decides to play enemies as especially vicious, then something as wrong.
The rules didn't crumble, your combats did because you had all enemies function as "vicious" and focus fire and CDG individual PCs until there was none.
Intentionally misreading a rule to force a negative income does in no way/shape/form prove a rule is faulty.
CDGs are vicious. Focus fire is not vicious; it's simply smart. Any enemies with an INT or WIS above 8 should easily grasp this concept and should do it like their lives depend on it. Because they do.
Strange, because I’ve GMed for plenty of tables where the players didn’t have their characters show that level of tactics. I’ve seen plenty of instances of players show-boating with something like “This one is mine!” and going one on one with an enemy. It is a common trope in fantasy media as well.
Common bandits aren’t likely to work together like Roman centurions, yet I’ve seen GMs go “hive mind” and execute near perfect strategy. Typical goblin strategies when given often are sub-optimal. When their lives depend on it, some of those opponents should be deciding running while the others in their group fight is the smart move. The people trying to kill them would go for the ones still fighting rather than the ones running away.
For anyone who wants to argue what is realistic, it might be useful if you bring in desertion rates in various military.
Some groups are looking for tactical challenges and that is fine provided it is made clear what the setting expectations are. This is supposed to be shared story-telling so it is important that people understand the type of setting they are in.
I wish the surveys had asked what feats you would never take in each section. This would have potentially pointed out problem feats. If a large section of the respondents give the same answer, there is a problem there. Now that problem may just be people underestimating a feat, but in that case something should be done to show it is worthwhile.
I need to ask, how are you controlling the data so it gives valid results?
Resonance use in a party with a Cleric is going to be very different than a party with an Alchemist. Use at low level will be harshly limited by funds as well since the consumables one might carry are relatively expensive.
As people learn the rules, new strategies are likely to be invented. Changes to the rules will cause these strategies to adapt. You get into a situation where the changes cascade and it is difficult to know how to interpret the data.
I like that you are gathering data and analyzing it. Please just have some checks that you have correctly identified cause and effect.
The fact that they combined the heigthened spells, the nerf of spell slots, and the nerf of spells is what makes me think Spellcasters in general are bad now. You have less spell slots - it could be okay by its own. But now, the spells have been nerfed, making a bunch of spells useless at their PF1 level (Mage Armor being +1 to AC only for exemple). And, now you have to heighten your spells to make them usefull : you need a 6th level Mage Armor (if I remember correctly, don't have the Rulebook on me at the time) to get back this +4 to AC, and you have to heighten Phantom Steed to get what it did in PF1, while this is a purely utilitary skill for a Wizard.
Your argument would have been a lot stronger if you had either left out the Mage Armor or done a more complete analysis.
In PF1, Mage Armor gave the same AC bonus as a chain shirt (+4) but started with a duration that may require more than one casting.
In PF2, Mage Armor lasts all day but starts at about the protection level of leather armor. As you heighten it, it keeps pace with about where leather armor would be assuming you upgrade it. Heightened to 2nd level it would be on par with the Chain Shirt or magical Leather. Heightened to 3rd level it would be about where magical Chain Shirt would be. It continues to increase the protection and always has an excellent duration.
In both versions the Mage Armor has features that makes it better than armor: no weight, no Dex cap, etc.
You need to evaluate the bonus against the new values that armor gives. It is complicated since most armor gives a lesser protection against TAC and then you have the enchantments that give the save bonus.
Note I am not saying there aren’t problems here, only that comparing directly against the bonus given by PF1 can be misleading because equipment scaling has changed as well.
There are a few worthwhile things left to put on yourself, like Mage Armor, False Life and Mirror Image.
Actually, no, Mage Armour is abysmal because of the way armour proficiencies work in PF2. All you lose for wearing armour you're not proficient in is 2 points of AC; until the very high levels a wizard gets a better AC by just wearing the heaviest armour he can afford and not casting mage armour. Even if he didn't bother to get proficiency. And that way he can also dump dexterity to no higher than 12, rather than raising it at every possible opportunity to maybe be competitive with the armour-wizard's AC. And he doesn't have to spend one of his highest level spell slots.
Yeah, I actually agree. Getting heavy armor proficiency is as easy as starting down the Fighter multiclass path, or you invest three general feats into it. But at the start, Mage Armor will get you through the lower levels.
But basically it's the same as with blaster spells, you need to invest precious high level slots into basic spells. The entire "you need to heighten all of those spells" paradigm really sits wrong with me.
I can see multiple ways to work it.
* Use your [max level -1] slot for Mage Armor. When you get level 4 slots, use a level 3 slot. This still gives you all of your highest level slots to sue for offense.
* Buy Bracers, which give about the same bonus as the above Mage Armor with cash.
* Spend a single feat for light armor proficiency and spend money on armor.
* Spend several ability points and a feat on Fighter Dedication. Most likely this means a 16 Dexterity in which case you will not be doing heavy armor. You are still spending money on armor, but now it might be Breastplate instead of light armor.
Only one of these options doesn’t involve spending money. None of them work at level 1.
Acid Splash: It has minor damage, but no save and applies persistent damage. If fights in PF2E really last longer than two rounds, it actually is decent.
You missed the most important detail on this spell. It does splash damage and swarms have a weakness to Splash Damage. Given past experiences with how much Paizo loves swarms, I think it becomes a must have Cantrip.
Dancing Lights became less useful. Before it was a mobile light source, but now I’ve been told you become fatigued if you concentrate one a spell for too long.
Every software project is easy for the person that doesn’t have to do it. ;)
Rather than continue down the rabbit hole of speculating on infrastructure, perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the use case so that they can clearly understand what it is we would like.
It is very useful to be able to get a list of scenarios played by character. In most cases, it is better if the list includes both played and GMed. Sorting by date also helps greatly. As stated before, this helps people check the acccuracy of their records.
If I had the option, I would allow public viewing of scenarios played on a character. This would make it easier to coordinate with others whne trying to select something to play and help a GM check if the character has done a linked scenario. Some of the scenarios link back to previous ones, incorporating characters and events from the other scenarios.
Although I like it for verifying my own records, I don’t think there is a need to show event description/name (which usually gives away the location) or date. Just the scenario name should be sufficient.
VCs likely need more information than the general public. Since I am not a VC, I will allow one of them to state what they need and how they use it.
My question regarding the stat generation is: What makes Elf Rogue A different stat-wise from Elf Rogue B?
Why wouldn't I use 10, 18, 16, 8, 12, 14, or 10, 18, 16, 10, 12, 12 for the stats on every Elf Rogue I create?
Because you may want to multiclass into Wizard or Cleric.
Another reason would be if you wanted 3 16s instead of 18, 16, 14. At 5th level, those 3 16s turn into 3 18s. Having an expectation of how long the campaign will last can make a difference in stat generation.
Actually, you could in 1st edition AD&D. I can't remember if second edition allowed it, but I think it was AD&D 3.0 that stopped allowing it.
It was stopped because it was overpowered. You would essentially be one level behind single-class characters, but would have all the class features of two classes. It'd be like being a gestalt Fighter 7//Wizard 7 while the rest of the party is 8th level.
It wasn’t quite gestalt. You got half hit points from each class and the progress tended to be a little more than one level behind. Going triple class was a bad deal, you were far behind everyone else after they got to 2nd level.
I do agree it wasn’t balanced, but neither was a lot of the other things in A D & D.
We will hopefully see if the playtest version of multiclassing is balanced or not. I don’t think that allowing it to start at level one would create new balance problems though.
Actually, you could in 1st edition AD&D. I can't remember if second edition allowed it, but I think it was AD&D 3.0 that stopped allowing it.
Luceon wrote:
Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.
Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.
The reason they should start with two classes is that they split their study between the two fields. Instead of having this represented by cramming on the second class in order to learn it during 2nd level, you allow them to start closer to what the person was probably imagining -- someone who learned skills from both disciplines.
Heya! This change to remove the sessions tab from /people pages was intentional and came from a view different vectors. Sessions are still viewable from your My Organized Play page.
Why on earth would you do this?
At a guess, the stuff in My Organized Play has minimal interactions and dependencies on the forum software. If that is the case, it may be easier for the web developers to change that section.
Someone asked about if it was intended for Wizards to just be able to multiclass fighter and get full armor/weapon proficiency. Answer: Yes! There is no arcane spell failure, Paizo reckons the opportunity cost of investing in strength and skipping a bunch of metamagic will make up for the difference.
I wonder if he forgot that you can qualify with Dex and 18 Int, 16 Dex is a very sensible 1st level stat selection for a Wizard. Light armor for a cheap bonus plus rune options, a rapier or other decent weapon in your hand, that's better than the vast majority of class feat options at 2nd level.
Is that really better than taking (as an example) your Ancestry’s Weapon Familiarity at 1st level, Armor Proficiency (light) at 2nd and then being able to take a different multiclass or a prestige class after that? If we had them, I would be looking at Bard or Druid as a multiclass.
The Fighter dedication gives a lot in comparison to many of them, but it does lock you in. In order to take advantage of the better armor, you will need to allocate attribute boosts to Strength. I’ve done a very simple comparison and there are most certainly trade offs.
Rolling 20 is better! Rolling a 20 on the die means you automatically succeed and may critically succeed. A critical success often has a greater effect than normal and usually requires you to exceed the Difficulty Class by 10 or more. More about critical successes is on page 292.
I don't think it compares that closely. It's trading -5 movement speed, -1 TAC, -4 Armor check penalty for +1 AC. Admittedly AC is probably more likely to come up than TAC but it's a pretty steep cost and really only worth it if you plan on getting attacked a lot.
I don't think most 1st level wizards will expend half their spells on AC.
Let's take it at 5th level instead.
16 Dex Wizard, 1st level Mage Armor
AC 19 = 10 + 1 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 level
TAC 19 = same as above
16 Dex Wizard, 2nd level Mage Armor (reasonable, it is only 1/3 their 2nd level spells)
AC 20 = 10 + 2 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 Level
TAC 20 = same as above.
Gets +1 to all saves
They could also at this point afford Bracers of Armor (2nd) at that is a 4th level item.
16 Dex Wizard, took Fighter Multiclass, +1 expert Scale Mail
+1 Magic Medium Armor is only a 3rd level item, so not unreasonable at this level.
AC 22 = 10 + 4 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 Level
TAC 20 = 10 +2 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 Level
Gets +1 to all saves. Bulk 2, -5 foot movement, -0 ACP
A reasonable trade-off.
16 Dex Wizard, took Fighter Multiclass, +1 expert Breastplate
AC 23 = 10 + 5 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 level
AC 21 = 10 + 3 item +3 Dex +0 Trained +5 level
Gets +1 to all saves, Bulk 2, -5 movement, -2 ACP (reduced once for Expert armor, again for Potency)
The ACP would make it difficult to balance, climb, swim or sneak.
At that point I think they would be better off with Bracers of Armor. Their AC would be one higher, but TAC one lower. At that point, the bulk and ACP will most likely not be worth it.
Cantrips don't use spell slots; they heighten to higher spell levels for no additional cost. If you cast Mage Armor as an 11th level wizard, the cantrip heightens to a 6th level spell, and you still have both your regular slots for 6th level spells.
I've been working hard on my magus character. Its sooo leet.
Wizard or Sorc as base class. Sorc is cool because you can go with the Occult spell list while the Wizard is arcane exclusive.
at level 2, take the fighter multiclass feat. This gives you proficiency with martial/simple weapons and all armor, but not shields. This is great for wizards since there aren't any negatives for casting in armor. (none I've found and I've looked!!) :)
You'll generally need a free hand, so you Want to weild a bastard sword (martial weapon), cause you can take an action to 2hand it, and take the damage from a D8 to a D12.
At 4th, I'd personally take the Magical Striker feat, this is a really big part of the plan and it's why sorceror and wizard are the best choices for magus.
so, once you have all these pieces, here's the sort of plan...
1 action, true strike (lvl 1, verbal action only)
0 action(free), Magical Striker activates, granting an extra dice of dmg.
1 action, strike. (wizards craft well, so they might even have their own magic +1 bastard sword!!!)
that's 2xD20's rolled on an attack which deals 2d12 or 3d12 + str. and you have an action to play with!! :)
I am looking at something very similar for a character of mine.
I went Elf for the Weapon Familiarity.
Str 12 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
Hand of the Apprentice and Reach Spell on a universal wizard.
At 2nd level, pick up the Fighter Multiclass for the Armor proficiency.
At 4th level pick up Magical Striker.
At 5th level pick up Weapon Elegance (Elf). Bump all physical attributes and Int.
Early levels you use Magical Weapon for the bonus Damage dice, it lasts a minute. If you have someone dedicated to melee, use it on their weapon since it likely has a larger damage die. I also plan to take Grim Tendrils since it is AoE line.
Acid Splash as a cantrip for swarms. It only does 1 splash damage, but swarms tend to have a weakness to splash damage.
In addition to the True Strike you mentioned, there are tricks like Hand of the Apprentice so you can make a Strike without having to be next to the opponent. The Elf weapons help at first level, and at 5th you are getting the critical specials.
Since Wizards never get better than Trained in Unarmored, wearing armor will end up being better except for the Bulk requirements.
I’m still trying to determine exactly what other things can be done here, but with the new weapon proficiency rules it looks possible for a Wizard to hit things. They still will be far behind a real martial character (only having Trained in their weapon normally), but it will not be as wide a gap as in PF1.
The sessions viewable from the My Organized Play page don’t give you a way to view it by character.
You can get a list of all the sessions you have played, or all that you have GMed. That list can get quite long.
When going through Organized Play paperwork, it was extremely convenient to be able to view just the records for a particular character. It would be slightly better if you could get a combined view (played and GMed) when doing this, but what used to be there was a great help.
I would guess there were privacy concerns that caused you to remove it. If you only included the scenario/module, an indication of played or GMed, and the prestige/reputation would it be possible to put that tab back?
Sounds painfully dull if I'm honest and I actually prefer PF2 to that level of detail.
It allows for some minor communication between people with similar languages. Allow a check for someone who knows English to understand some of what someone speaking German is saying.
What is or isn’t fun details will depend on the audience. I imagine some people would like a better way than mime to communicate with a nearby culture where the languages share common elements.
Few RPGs I've come across model degrees of language proficiency, however. The idea of a single skill point granting complete mastery of a language always rubbed me the wrong way, but attempts at house ruling an entire new subsystem and tacking it on to languages met with at best mixed success and was abandoned.
Hero System (the rules underlying Champions) used a language chart that showed languages with common roots. It made other languages from the same family easier to learn than completely different ones.
Something like that might be made to work in PF2 if we were given enough resources to purchase multiple languages. I think the UTEML proficiency system could be used as a basis but it would have to use a different resource for languages separate from the current skills.
Trick Magic Item is a feat that allows you to use your skill in one of the magical traditions (Arcana, Nature, Religion, or Occult) that you are trained in to activate magic items of that tradition.
It doesn’t work exactly the same way, but it basically does what UMD used to do.
If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.
Then we have the Bludgeoner Rogue Feat.
Quote:
You make brutal bludgeoning attacks that daze your foes. You can deal sneak attack damage with one-handed weapons of the club and mace groups even if they don't have the agile or finesse trait. When you Strike with that weapon and critically succeed at the attack roll, you gain the following enhancement.
Enhancement The target is slowed 1 until the end of your next turn.
Since even in the core playtest we are adding weapons to what the rogue can use Sneak Attack with, I would recommend you create a classification for these weapons and change the descriptions. That will make it easier to add other feats that expand the weapons and allow you to cleanly specify when something is limited to weapons that a rogue can use to Sneak Attack with.
——
I assume that the weapons from Bludgeoner are not supposed to get Dex to Damage. The way things are currently worded they wouldn’t get it.
——
If a Rogue takes Bludgeoner, should their proficiency in those weapons increase to Expert at 13th level when they get Weapon Tricks? Currently the way it is worded they wouldn’t get that unless the weapon was also a simple weapon.
I would suggest you expand this to include any weapons they can Sneak Attack with. That way it would include the weapons from Bludgeoner and any future weapons you may add.
While I can appreciate this, I'm also a little partial to Magic being it's own language that anyone can learn. If for no other reason, it's rather amusing to have my barely literate barbarian pick up a magic scroll and inform the wizard that it says it's a fireball spell (though to be fair that's a bit of a pain to do in PF1 as is). It'll be interesting to see how they're wanting magic writings to function in -game.
I have also considered Magical Notation it’s own language, sort of like music and math are.
Music and math both use symbols that aren’t used for spoken languages. Those symbols have become standardized so that it is easier to figure out what they are. They don’t change based on the writer’s native language, an integral notation is the same regardless of if the manual is written in English or German. Same for the sheet music.
Those styles of notation are what I imagined magical writings was like. Special symbols with their own contextual meanings and specialized symbols for each of the different schools of magic.
With magical writings now being in a certain language, we need to know what languages a Wizard should expect to need. Will most of the magic be written in a mixture of Common, Elven and Draconic? If someone is focused on Necromancy, are they going to feel the need to learn Necril as a language? What language should someone specializing in Transmutation magic learn in order to have the best chance of reading esoteric magical writings? Does it change based on magical tradition?
In general, characters will know less languages than they did in PF1. Rather than getting an Int bonus to languages known, you get a single extra language if your Int is 14 or higher. Other than that, it seems the only way to get more languages is via Multilingual feat.
I think that the original poster has brought up a number of good points here.
The book is currently organized to be able to reference things if you already have an idea of what you are looking for. It isn’t nearly as good for someone coming in fresh and trying to understand the system.
It is a very dry, mechanical read. It feels more like a specification than something that ignites the imagination. There are some things that can be done which I think would help quite a bit.
A section for those familiar with RPGs
This should be a quick start for people who have played other RPGs and want to jump into this one. It should give a high level overview of character creation and what ‘knobs to turn’ when making your character.
This section would not assume that the reader is familiar with Pathfinder, but would assume they know general RPG concepts and don’t need dice explained to them. It should point out where they can read a description of the jargon specific to this game.
This section can send people off to different areas of the rules, but it still needs to be careful of how much page flipping it causes.
A better section talking about building the character
This should start out with things that help you decide the A, B, Cs.
It should include the strengths of each of the classes, and the basics of what you can achieve with them. Table 1-1 and 1-2 on pg. 13 is likely supposed to provide this, but I didn’t find it very useful.
Table 1-2 at the very least needs statements like ‘Fighters are the very best at weapons’, ‘Paladins are the very best at armor and have defensive combat abilities to support that’, ‘Monks are the masters at unarmed combat. Some wield mystical powers while others focus on physical combat’ and other such phrases.
The designers intended each class to be the best in one particular area. That should be clearly spelled out in Table 1-2. They need to give people tropes they can latch on to while avoiding poor stereotypes.
Sample character outlines
One of the better things that Starfinder did was the two page spreads for each character class showing the breadth of characters that could be created. It included feat and skill suggestions that helped direct people to what they were looking for.
The feats section would work a lot better if there were these sort of character briefs in each character class. Make it so people can put together a character by copying the elements in one of the outlines.
A section before the classes explaining common elements
It might even be titled something like common elements.
This is where you tell people to look at the class table for when they get general feats, ancestry feats, and some of the other repetitive text that currently exists. It would be a good place to cover proficiency increases and where to look on each class for when those happen.
It would also likely be good to include something here about what can be done to modify some of those elements if the class doesn’t have exactly what they are looking for. Things like feats that would change each type (weapons, armor, saves, skills) of proficiency, a forward reference to multiclassing, etc.
Make it clear what can be customized in the common elements if what is presented in the class isn’t exactly what you wanted.
——
Some of the above is already in the rules, just not in a very accessible manner.
Other things I am still looking for. As an example, when can the Rogue improve armor proficiency from Trained to Expert, Master or Legendary in light armor? There are skill increases noted on the tables, but I don’t see a consistent notation for weapon and armor proficiency increases.
The Paladin class has it hidden by calling it Armored Fortitude. It seems to be fixed for them, I’m not sure if their proficiency with the lighter armors ever does improve.
When you gain multiple ability boosts at the same time, you must apply each one to a different score.
——
I was wondering about how it would work with a dwarf taking that Ancestry feat. Best I can determine the minimum Reasonance is 0, so assuming an 8 Charisma and this feat it would be 4th level before you got any Resonance. That could make taking a healing potion a bit tricky.
At that point, does your character basically require that someone play a healer to keep you alive?
When you gain multiple ability boosts at the same time, you must apply each one to a different score.
Honestly, I think it would be better if that restriction were not applied to the four free that you get at first level, but others feel it is a good thing. I like being able to create a character of any race in spite of the general racial flaw.
It is a difference in viewpoint, one that has caused quite a bit of discussion in the Starfinder forums since that uses a slightly different system that allows you to sink everything into overcoming a racial flaw.
Honestly, I wish all classes had one “free” Signature Skill that you picked.
This allows some customization out of the gate without having to pay extra. True, it doesn’t matter to the character until 7th level. In my opinion, it would even be alright if you had to wait until 9th level to make that pick, slightly delaying your ability to Master that skill.
I like to make characters that have something unusual or quirky about them. In PF1, that would often mean taking a skill that isn’t typical for that class. I’ve an Ifrit Swashbuckler who is working to get Kn: Planes as a class skill as part of connecting to his heritage. It has helped me understand their motivations and interests.
In PF2 the classes already limit how many skills you can advance to the higher levels by limiting the number of Skill Increase you get. If a person wants to spend those on a skill that isn’t generally associated with their class, why not allow it? Their total number of Master and Legendary skills will not change, just what skills they can choose to get to those levels.
As I mentioned in another thread, I would also be in favor of Craft always being a Signature Skill.
I would like more flexibility in choosing signature skills as well. It isn’t like you are going to be able to advance every skill to Legendary anyways. You have a limited number of skill imrpovements.
Every class should probably have craft as a signature skill, just so there isn’t an imbalance in what can be done in the way of downtime. If someone wants their barbarian to be a legendary haberdasher, let them!
Background A background represents a profession or other significant aspect of your life before becoming an adventurer. Backgrounds give you ability boosts, signature skills, and feats. Learn more on page 38.
Although technically correct, this should read Lore skills instead of signature skills.
If it is any comfort, it looks like signature skills may have been part of backgrounds but got edited out?
Technically all Lore skills are Signature skills.
Playtest, pg. 151 wrote:
Second, all of your Lore skills are signature skills (see page 144). This means that you can advance them to expert or legendary proficiency if you so choose.
Still, I agree with you. The description in the Backgrounds is much better.
(Would need to do something for slings too, to make them viable.)
Alchemical payloads that make them the best weapon for delivering ‘special’ ammunition.
Right now, I only find one thing — the Stone Bullet, item level 14, does stone to flesh — but it would make sense that it is a lot easier to package alchemical and magical specials in a sling bullet than it is an arrow.
Let's say we have a level 7 rogue who has reached Master level of proficiency in deception, and has a charisma of 20. She's a darn good liar, with a proficiency bonus of her level (7) +2 (Master) +5 (charisma) for a total of +14.
Now let's say we have a level 20 dwarven wizard with a charisma of 8, who is untrained in deception. Her proficiency bonus alone, despite being untrained, is 18, because being untrained still lets you add your entire level -2 to your skill check, and even with the lowest possible charisma in the game, this dwarf is still a better liar than the above rogue.
That level 7 Rogue likely has some skill feats to use with that skill. Something like Charming Liar so that the person they are talking to starts to like them, or perhaps Confabulator so that targets have less of a chance of seeing some of your other lies.
Your level 20 Wizard also can’t feint in combat since they are not trained in Deception. The table on pg. 143 calls out where you need training in order to use the skills in some way.
Signature skill prevents people from getting the highest levels of training in skills that the game designers have decided that class shouldn’t have.
The only way I have found to add Signature skills is by using the archetypes found starting on pg. 279 of the Playtest rule book.
There are no more ‘class skills’ that give you an edge in a skill at the low levels. It isn’t until 7th level that the signature skills determine who is best at a skill. That is when the classes allow you to advance to Master in a skill.
The worst about repeated text I feel are Ability Boosts and Ancestry Feats in each class and the Basic/Expert/Master <insert class name> Spellcasting from the multiclassing rules.
I like that they show them on the table, but really am not so fond of the same repeated text in every class entry.
Where it doesn't make as much sense are things like Discerning Smell, Obsessive, Flame Heart, Razor Teeth and some of the other ancestors feats.
All of those except Obsessive are heritage feats, which can only be taken at level 1. I feel like Obsessive though is one of the easiest ones to justify later though- you just didn't discover the one topic that is close to your heart until later level, at which point you dove wholeheartedly into it.
Missed that they were heritage feats. Not surprising, I’m sure there are a lot of things I’m still not groking about the rules yet. I generally need to break things down and figure out what information is most key on a topic.
I am really feeling like with a lot of the stuff you need to be 5th level before you have abilities roughly equivalent to a 3rd level PF1 character.
You need to read through the rules a little bit more.
All classes are limited to becoming no better than Expert unless they have the skill as a Signature skill. There are a lot of classes that have at least one skill which a Rogue doesn’t get on their list of Signature skills. Starting at 7th level, the Paladin, Monk and Cleric are likely to be better at Religion than the Rogue while the Druid and Ranger are going to be better at Survival than the Rogue.
The only way I can find that a Rogue has of adding new Signature skills is via Multiclassing or Archetypes. Doing that damages their ability to take the Rogue feats.
The Alchemist on the other hand has class feats to add Signature skills. Tricky Tinkerer adds Thievery while Stalker adds Stealth. They can also pick up Nature and Religion as Signature skills via Awakened Intellect.
The Alchemist appears to me to have the widest ability for Signature skills. They are limited in how many of those they can get to Legendary, but they have the most choices.
Looks to me like once again the Rogue is the easiest class to completely replace.
I agree that many we were given should be at first level, but disagree that all of them should be.
I think it makes sense that the Weapon Cunning (Dwarf) or Weapon Elegance (Elf) would take time to grow into. You are perfecting the form you started with in Weapon Familiarity. In fact, I would say they probably should add another that is Weapon Perfection where you can get to a higher proficiency level with your racial weapons. Allow an Elven Mage to become Expert or Rogue to become Legendary with a Bow.
Where it doesn't make as much sense are things like Discerning Smell, Obsessive, Flame Heart, Razor Teeth and some of the other ancestors feats.
I think that these could stand to be replaced by some other flavorful minor benefit appropriate to half-elves and half-orcs, though I could not suggest anything myself.
Maaaaaaaaybe actual fully detailed Ancestries instead of Feat Taxes :3
This, it is a sad half-orc who cannot get proficiency in greataxe until 4th level due to bad feat taxes.
Yeah, this.
"I've never been able to use a greataxe before, but suddenly I know what I'm doing. Must have been because I watched great-grandma use one before I left home"
Better than that, you get your choice between proficiency or dark-vision!
Half-orcs can no longer start the game with dark vision.
Using the iconic's gear isn't a good way to evaluate whether something needs to be changed as they're extremely suboptimal. Just look at poor Harsk who shoots a crossbow every other round at all levels.
Pregens are what people often use when playing at a convention and what people learning the game look at when first trying to build a character of their own. Considering the cost of each alchemical weapon, a starting character is unlikely to have more than one or two such items,
Also, you should get a new copy of the pregens. At first level, Harsk now has:
Feats Rapid Reload (heavy crossbow)
The CR 2 Bat Swarm isn’t a lot of fun for low level characters either.
It has a fly speed better than most character’s move speed, enough hit points to take multiple hits, and a touch AC high enough that characters are going to have trouble hitting.
Seoni has a single scroll of Burning Hands, Ezren has it in memory so he could cast it twice (using his Arcane Bond for the second casting), Amiri has a single flask of acid, Lini has a single flask of acid, Valeros and Merisiel each have both alchemist fire and acid,
Burning Hands has a Reflex Save of +7 for half damage, just to add insult to the situation.
PF2 has Alchemist as a core class, so we could add in Damiel and their seven bombs. That class is able to take it out all by themselves. Without him, you’ve got problems.
Oh, and writers usually give some indication there are undead allowing you to adjust your preparation. I can’t recall any scenarios that warn of swarms.
In 3.0 you could use a torch to injure swarms. I’ve been told that rule exists in 3.5 as well. That change alone would make them much more manageable.
School necromancy
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range touch
Targets one living creature or construct
Duration instantaneous and 1 round/level; see text
Saving Throw Fortitude partial and Will partial, see text;
Spell Resistance yes
You concentrate key particles in your blood into tiny biological nanobots that you can inject into a foe with a touch, disrupting and damaging its natural processes. Make a melee attack against the target's EAC; if you hit, the nanobots deal 4d8 damage and swarm through the target's biological or mechanical systems, causing the creature to be confused, as per confusion, for 1 round per your caster level. If the target succeeds at a Fortitude save, it takes only half damage and negates the confusion effect. A confused target can attempt a Will saving throw at the beginning of its turn each round to end the confusion effect.
Casting this spell doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Confused, pg. 273-4:
Confused
You are mentally befuddled and can't act normally. You can't tell the difference between ally and foe, and thus you treat all creatures as enemies, even your closest friends and family, if applicable. An ally who wishes to cast a beneficial spell on you with a range of touch must succeed at an attack roll against your Energy Armor Class, since you cannot be considered a willing target. If you are attacked while you're confused, you always attack the creature that last attacked you until that creature is dead or out of sight, unless it is otherwise impossible for you to attack it that round.
While confused, you can't make attacks of opportunity against any creature or thing that you aren't already committed to attacking. If you are not devoted to attacking a target, roll on the following table at the beginning of your turn each round to see what you do in that round.
D% BEHAVIOR
1–25 Act normally.
26–50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51–75 Deal 1d8 + Str modifier damage to self with item in hand.
76–100 Attack nearest creature.
If you can't carry out the indicated action, you do nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking you.
So I have a few questions about this.
Saving throws against Confusion
By my reading, in most cases a person would get two saves before acting confused: one when hit and another at the start of their turn. The only way to not give the second check would be to hit with an Attack of Opportunity or have a Readied Attack.
Is that correct?
Order of operation, spell damage and confusion
Would the spell damage happen before they become confused?
Normally a confused creature will attack the last one who last did damage to it. A Technomancer generally doesn’t want a creature to focus their attacks on them. If the spell causes the creature to always focus on the one who cast the spell, that seems like a problem.
