So, everything published under the Infinite License can be used by other authors/publishers in their own products, but only if published under Infinite License, right? Even the mechanics of those products are not under ORC and can't be used by anyone publishing anything outside the Infinite License.
However, can someone create new content, with only ORC (rules/mechanic) content and IP owned/created by themselves (of course, making sure that this content isn't related to OGL or any other IP/copyright owned by others), and publish it in more than one place, for example, in one product under Infinite, and in another product under ORC?
Or, once this new content is published under Infinite, it can't be published under ORC (and vice versa)?
Example: Someone creates an ancestry, with IP/lore content owned only by themselves, and with PF2, ORC mechanics. As long as this content has nothing related or tied to OGL or Paizo-owned IP, can this be published both as an ORC product outside of Infinite/Drive Thru (under Pathfinder Compatibility License), and later as an Infinite product?
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!
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.
... 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.
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.
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!
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... :(
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".
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.
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.
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 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.
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.)
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.
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.
Some items allow you to use an activate action as a reaction or free action. In this case, you Activate the Item as a reaction or free action instead of as an activity. Such cases are noted in the item’s stat block (for example, “ Focus Activation reaction”).
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.
