Bruno Mares's page

That's why we all love Paizo!

And that's the kind of leadership we need in the community!

Thanks for being Paizo, Paizo.

silversarcasm wrote:

Oooooooh im so excited, i was talking recently about how excited I was a certain story thread form legends was brought up again in Impossible Lands and now it seems we're getting a whole ap about it? Lets gooooo

Am sad to see its not a 6 parter though, hope they havent been completely abandoned!

If folks want us to do more 6-part Adventure Paths... PLEASE let us know! The 3 part ones seem to be engaging people more and allow for more stories to be told in a year, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to settle into a rhythum that allows for more frequent higher level 3 part arcs, but if people do still want 6 part ones... we need to know. (And that includes seeing evidence in sales and reviews and the like for parts 4–6 of those Adventure Paths, not just requests at the front end.)

Sorry if I'm derailing it too much, but for me and the groups I've been playing, looks like the biggest issue with APs is the time it takes to leveling up (and the excess of "unnecessary" battles for the story — looks like they are there just to fill the excessive XP needs).

Considering that nowadays most people use to play weekly sessions that have 2-3 hours in length, an 6-part AP takes as long as 3 years (or even more!). The problem is that it's very rare that nobody wants to change their PCs in that long, long time. Also looks like that if we take an AP to play, we are never able to enjoy the other books that Paizo releases in those 3 years, specially in terms of character options and optional rules (and other APs...).

So my opinion is that 3-part APs are way better, but not able to solve our groups problems. Of course, as the stories are always incredible, we just have to adapt it to a faster leveling up, but having it printed or RAI would be waaaay better for us (and, I dare to say, for most groups/parties nowadays with those common 2-3 hours weekly sessions).

Now, about the AP itself: CAN'T WAIT TO PLAY IT! DWARF ONLY PARTY, OF COURSE!

I'm still wondering about alchemist's attacks proficiencies... Should they reach master at any time?

Thanks for the hard work at this amazing campaign! One more year waiting is nothing compared to the final product we'll receive!

Can't wait to fight Stag Lord one more time!

Yeeeeessssssssss!!!!!!!

Love it!

May we all have hope and defeat the disease! Best wishes for all.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I just found out that this book has a Bag of Weasels as a magic item.

So I think it's officially the best book ever.

I can't believe I'm saying this but there actually exists a lengthy and substantive thread with really great discussion whose entire premise is exactly your post.

Best book, best community. Just like that.

Nice sheet!!!

Can't wait for it! Now I'm dreaming about all 1st Edition APs in CRPG! Haha!

(And please let us create por our own magic items now.)

We have Oracle now!!!!! <3

That's awesome! As a 95%-time GM: thanks, Paizo! :D

Did they say anything about fighter unarmed proficiency starting at 1st level at expert and jumping to legendary at 19th level?

The weapon legend feature (13th) does not mention unarmed strikes, and I think it should since versatile legend increase it to legendary at 19th level.

(Maybe Mark can answer this one here, hehe)

ikarinokami wrote:

tqomins wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Proficiencies for Unarmed Strike sure look weird.

... Fighters start Expert and leap to Legendary at lvl19 with nothing in between, and can't use Weapon Mastery for UAS ...

I'm pretty sure unarmed combat works the same for fighters as any other weapon group. unarmed belongs to the brawling group.

I do think that's what was intended, and how I'd choose to run it as a GM. But the rules as written don't actually do that. Because (1) the Fighter's proficiency increases go to "weapons" in a weapon group, but (2) unarmed strikes are not weapons (even though they belong to weapon groups). So as a result, Fighter starts at level 1 as Expert in unarmed strikes, and has no way to increase that until level 19, when Versatile Legend swoops in and bumps that to Legendary.

Unarmed Trait:

Unarmed Trait wrote:

An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits.

Fighter:

Fighter Weapon Mastery (5th Level) wrote:

Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple and martial weapons in that group ...

Fighter Weapon Legend (13th Level) wrote:

Your proficiency ranks for simple and martial weapons increase to master. Your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to expert. You can select one weapon group and increase your proficiency ranks to legendary for all simple and martial weapons in that weapon group, and to master for all advanced weapons in that weapon group.

Fighter Versatile Legend (19th Level) wrote:

You are nigh-unmatched with any weapon. Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increase to legendary, and your

...

RAW you're certain about the unarmed proficiences, but I'm guessing that, RAI (IMO), they should increase.

Also: GREAT POST! THANKS!

Just loving all about Second Edition! *.*

Congratulations to Brazilian friends! Last year, with an enormous effort, we were able to release the Playtest in Italian only in November. This time we decided to take more time and go out in April 2020. So again congratulations to Brazilian friends, they must have spent several sleepless nights to be able to reach such goal!

We certainly did not sleep well in May and the same will happen until August 1st...

But every minute worth it!

We're big fans of the game and all the team is working hard!

Best drunken ever!

Rage on?!? I'm raging since 2018 march! Hahahaha!

Wow! I hope this to be as good as we wish! Specific sheets are amazing things!

So far, the playtest is going very well here!

The bantrid vanguard of our party is shining all the time!

Counting down the days to put my hands in the future best fantasy RPG of all times!!! *.*

Totally gaming in!!! <3 <3 <3

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level.

Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.

Liked the Flat recovery check.

It's simple and avoid the use of a DC table and have the same final result (maybe a little more dangerous, what I like), and also make all character more "heroics".

Keep this 1.5 way.

I think that ancestries are all lacking something that they use to have.

The feeling is that Paizo just scattered their old racial traits from PF1 in higher level feats with few not interesting additions.

And my expectation was just:

1) Ancestries receive the same/similar amount of their old racial traits (with some game balance in rules)

2) Ancestries receive NEW very interesting feats to choose in their higher levels that give the sensation that our characters evolution (and options) is different from all other ancestries with some exclusive/good/fun choices.

Is Golarion a male or female noun?

And what about the other system's planets?

A friend said that a planet that support life is always a she, but that may not be true for Aucturn...

Sand *.*
Point *.*

Shorter APs is a great thing!

Keep innovating!

And please, dare to write shorter Pathfinder APs later, specially higher level APs to achieve level 20! I'd love it!

Seems like a reasonable change, as you would just need one good description (with an example please) in the magic chapter for "basic saving throws", though if possible I would like to request, that every spell should also mention the spellcasting types that can access it. A symbol (not unlike the solution for Starfinder) would be enough, but make it so much easier to read and look for options.

If the players find a scroll of Fireball, I can't just look up Fireball I need to go to the various pages of spell lists to find out if the characters in the party can identify the scroll in a very short time or not, and who can use it.

And kinda linked to that, I have gotten a very strong feedback from my players that actually having to flip between the class chapter and the spells is very annoying, so if at all possible, I would like to request to put all those powers into their respective class entries. While it will not be that bad for Paladins, this will swell the size of the cleric chapter quite a bit, but personally, it would be a very welcome change.

Man, you fully read my thoughts (and the same thoughts of the two parties I'm playing the Playtest).

Please, Mark (whom reads all the blogs posts haha) and the entire devs team, listen to this guy! The powers scattered among spells is indisputably the worst thing in the book.

I like this, but think it might be best to put it into the statblock itself:

Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst; Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.

Totally agree.

Probably I'd change the wording basic saving throw for damage saving throw or standard saving throw.

That's really good!

Please do something similar to Dedication feats. They all show a special entry with the exact SAME text. Please turn this into a standard rule, because there is no need to say the same thing multiple times and because we can gain more archetypes using the new free space.

I'm ok with heavy, medium and light armor giving the same AC (adding item bonus plus dex bonus), but so they should cost the same...

Also, the extra complication is too bad and go in an opposite direction for the game purpose. Please, unify and standardize that rules to become more player-friendly.

I agree to standardize half-ancestries in all ancestries.

Please list that high DC in the creatures' stats.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.

It's odd and bizarre that an expert (or better) character can't take 10 to climb a wall or something like that...

You SHOULD bring back take 10 and take 20 as standard rules. It's entirely necessary to keep the pace of the game.

And I doubt that someone will choose those Assurance feats forfeiting the other cool skill feats available.

At minimum, all characters should gain assurance for free at ALL skills in which they're expert or better.

An expert character having to buy a FEAT to receive something like a medium 5 on the D20? Didn't convince me...

In the preview blogs, we had a lot of mentions a about wording standardization, but that's not true in the classes feats. A lot of feats that should (and that really does that) give the same abilities to different classes, are a lot different in different clssses. They mean the same, but some write one thing in five lines, while the other write that in three lines.

You can double check all druid's and ranger's feats for animal companions and see that there are a lot of differences. (The same apply to paladin's steed and other feats that are mutual to two or more classes.)

Also, the class powers entries are showing different texts for the same rules between different classes. It's already hard to explain to players that you have spell points to cast powers that are spells. Couldn't you standardize those texts?

(That's just a nitpicking observatiin, but in the final Core Rulebook, this could be ajusted to improve the game to be more player-friendly and modular.)

Assurance is really terrible and we need take 10 (or take 20) back!

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.

(I had already posted this suggestion in another similar thread)

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.

I'm hoping to see some explanation about magic armor and Resonance Points.
Even after reading that a lot of times (like ten times) is not clear if we need to invest in a magic armor, specially in those that have property runes with an Activation entry.

Is absolutely not clear, and this may be critical to test the Resonance Points subsystem correctly.

(Also: really hopping for some critical update or new rule update for shields. If we can start combate with shield raised, considering that a combat have 3 or 4 rounds, we need to spend an action in 2 or 3 rounds, and this makes no sense for a too small AC bonus, specially one that do not stack with cover, which I can improve to +4 circumstance bonus with the same action that I'd use to raise a shield.)

For what I understand, as potency runes for armor and weapons don't have the invested trait, we don't need to invest them to receive its benefits.

Also, some property runes have the actavion entry. RAW, we need to spend 1 Resonance Point to Activate it. That's ok.

However, in Activating Magic Items entry (on page 376), we can activate only items that we have invested, as the Requirement entry says.

So, shouldn't those property runes with a activation entry have the invested trait?

Just passing by to ask for Orcs as a core race! (not in place of goblins, but WITH them!)

My biggest concern about Hero Points: game sessions are not a fix mechanical measure. In some groups, game sessions last between 6 to 8 hours, in others, game sessions last at maximum 2 or 3 hours.

The "fix" Hero Points concession should be based on some game mechanic, not something as random as "game session". Maybe 1 Hero Point per level, plus extra Hero Points per heroic deeds and the like, just like it was in APG. APG's way to give players hero points is very good so there is no need to change it.

Totally agree with the thread title.

All classes should gain 10 class feats.

Maybe, some could gain 11 (an extra class feat at 1st level).

The way it is, it's unbalanced and not all characters have the same number of options to make (despite the spellcasters lot of spells). We really like all classes to be "modular, balanced, equal in options."

This is a big issue.

Think about a fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility.

My suggestion is that the AC circumstance bonus from shield should be a passive bonus.

Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum.

But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.

This is a big issue. A fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility.

The AC circumstance bonus from shield SHOULD be a passive bonus.

Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum.

But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.

Dwarves: 2 (bonus hp, speed penalty, extra abilityx2)

Elves: 1 (hp penalty, speed bonus, extra ability)
Gnome: 0 (speed penalty, extra ability)
Goblin: 0 (hp penalty, extra ability)
Halfling: -1 (hp penalty)
Human: 0

Totally agree with this.

Dwarves are the better ancestry.
Elves a little good.
Gnomes, Goblins, and Humans are "ok".
Halflings are waaaayyy worse than others.
Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are as bad as halflings, since they "don't receive" ancestry feats.

I'm ok with dwarves being better (haha), but all others should be balanced, specially halflings and half-humans.