![]()
![]()
![]() James Jacobs wrote:
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! ![]()
![]() Mark Seifter wrote:
Best book, best community. Just like that. ![]()
![]() 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) ![]()
![]() tqomins wrote:
RAW you're certain about the unarmed proficiences, but I'm guessing that, RAI (IMO), they should increase. Also: GREAT POST! THANKS! ![]()
![]() User69 wrote: 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! ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Andrew Riebe wrote:
Totally agree. Probably I'd change the wording basic saving throw for damage saving throw or standard saving throw. ![]()
![]() 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.) ![]()
![]() 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.
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.
This seems very reasonable to me. ![]()
![]() Erik Mona wrote:
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.
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. Spoiler:
ACTIVATE AN ITEM
Requirement You can Activate an Item you’re wearing only if you have invested it. Cost 1 Resonance Point, spent when you start taking activate actions for this activity You activate an item’s magical ability. Activating an Item is an activity that takes a variable number of actions, depending on the item. The activate actions required are listed in the stat block. You can spend those actions in any order you wish, provided you do so consecutively on a single turn. As soon as all activate actions are complete, the item’s effect occurs. If an item has multiple abilities that can be activated, you must choose which one to use each time you Activate the Item.
So, shouldn't those property runes with a activation entry have the invested trait? ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() LordKailas wrote:
Totally agree with this. Dwarves are the better ancestry.
I'm ok with dwarves being better (haha), but all others should be balanced, specially halflings and half-humans.
|