Bug Underfoot's page

Actually I see now where he's getting the idea. They added text to the Somatic Component description saying that you make a touch as part of the somatic component.

However, just like using Sudden Charge, casting a spell is an Activity, not really a bunch of discrete actions. You do an Activity as a single contiguous block and can't break it apart. For example, you can't initiate sudden charge then break it apart to get more actions than you would normally have on a turn.

Also, Quickened Casting lets you remove the somatic component from a spell entirely, yet there is no text about touch attacks failing to work in this event. The attack still happens even in the total absence of a somatic component, so it is just part of finishing the spell.

While I'd prefer there to be some incentive to use newer, flashier, more expensive higher level spells as your character levels up... You do make a good point about spontaneous casters having to relearn a spell multiple times at higher levels. I had blocked that bit of stupidity from my mind.

If they retain relearning spells over and over, then yes, they are competing directly with other spells of that level. As such they should be made just as strong as other spells of that level. And all spellcasters, spontaneous and prepared alike, should have to play by the same rules and relearn the spell multiple times at higher levels.

If they get rid of that stupid mechanic, and let everyone heighten the spells they know without restriction, then heightened spells should remain less powerful than actual spells of that level. Because then they are more versatile while also being less expensive and easier to learn than higher level spells.

The target can't take hostile actions toward anyone. Likewise, the protection is good against everyone. You don't have to choose a specific enemy to have sanctuary against.

citricking wrote:

Why should a weapon user not get something interesting like winged boots. A +3 weapon just makes them keep up, they should have the same access to interesting items as non weapon users.

Why should I pick a class that does damage unrelated to weapons if everybody is getting free advancing weapon damage and I get nothing? A weapon user still gets those boots, they just have to wait a level.

Your non weapon user is ALSO advancing in damage as they level up. PF2 already allows wizards to cast stronger cantrips and alchemists to make stronger bombs and druids to assume stronger forms. If the mindblade or Starfinder solarian were ported over, their damage automatically scales too. So why shouldn't the fighter also get to automatically scale?

And just as fighters would still be able to get cool magic weapons that make them better via property runes and intrinsic traits and craft quality, there should be corresponding Implements or Tools or Bracers or whatever to provide similar benefits to wizards and alchemists and druids and so on.

There is no longer a distinction between spells, spell like abilities and supernatural abilities in PF2. Everything is just a spell. Powers are defined as spells in the rules. So you can apply metamagic to a power.

The curse is in reference to the (frankly mind boggling) situation in Adventure 6 in the playtest. If you dare try ask around town about a big gala that everyone for miles should have heard about, you have to pass a crazy high DC check or get cursed. It should be basically common knowledge, DC 10, but they scaled it to the party's level. Adventure 6 is actually the source of a lot of fears about PF2 just setting all DCs based on party level instead of what would actually make sense in the world.

Higher level spells have more opportunity cost, and cost more money to acquire. There is also a "rule of cool" and "variety" aspect where you want to incentivize people to actually use the cool new higher level abilities they just got access to, instead of continuing to spam Old Reliable through their whole career. So lower level spells in a higher level slot should not be quite as effective as a spell native to a higher level.

However, they don't have to fall behind quite as much as they currently do. There's an in between space where the heightening effects on spells can be better than currently presented, but still not as good as actual higher level spells.

Max potency = +0

Characters get everything they get to keep up with attack and damage from their level.

There's still room for interesting magic items, way more interesting I think, for Drizzt instead of 2 +5 swords and anklets of +2 Dex he could have:

A sword that adds a small amount of cold damage and gives immunity to fire.
A sword that gives an extra reaction that can be used to parry an incoming melee attack.
Anklets that allows a step as a free action.

Exactly. Magic items that do things, or that invest the person wielding with the ability to do things, are interesting and feel magical. "Doing things" can be a new passive ability, it can be an actual activated ability, it can be all kinds of stuff.

Items that simply raise a numeric trait are not interesting in the g&% d%#ned least and should be expunged from the game.

So, I just noticed in the rules for walls the following line:

Each square of the wall’s length must be adjacent with the square or squares next to it, so walls cannot be shaped to make a diagonal line.

So, diagonal spaces are apparently not considered adjacent.

Is this intended or was this some rogue editor? Because it means that, say, a fighter maneuver or spell or whatever that hits "adjacent targets" cannot hit two targets that are right next to each other but just happen to be diagonal to each other on the arbitrary grid map, rather than orthogonally north south east west to each other. It means that if you have the ability to protect an adjacent ally, they're out of luck if they're diagonal to you.

This makes no sense. The grid is entirely arbitrary. It could just as easily be oriented in an X instead of + and distances would be the same. What's up here?

The inability to block or even disincentive enemies from just strolling past the front line to get at the squishies in the back has been really frustrating to my group. I don't want PF1's AoO to come back in full, but can we have something in between? Here's a few suggestions.

-----

There is a default AoO that procs from anyone when you move AWAY from their reach. This does NOT trigger when you "would leave a square an opponent threatens" like PF1, it ONLY triggers when you "would leave an opponent's threatened reach." So, you can still weave and circle around enemies, better maneuver into and out of flanking, and so on, so long as you remain adjacent to your enemy.

This gives a lot more dynamic mobility than PF1 while still preserving that disengaging should be painful.

-----

The Fighter actually DOES get the old style, and you provoke from a Fighter if you leave any square they threaten. Being the best at AoO should definitely be a Fighter feature, it's just that the ability to AoO at all shouldn't be locked into the Fighter.

Likewise, the Fighter should get other abilities in this vein. For example, "Your threatened reach is 5 ft farther than your actual reach. When someone provokes an opportunity attack in the area you threaten, you can Step as a free action as part of taking the opportunity attack."

-----

Ranged weapons and attack spells... Have it, "If you make a ranged attack while threatened or cast a spell with an attack roll while threatened, and this attack is against one of the opponents threatening you, you do not provoke an opportunity attack. If you make a ranged or spell attack against a target farther away while threatened, you do provoke an opportunity attack."

Someone with a gun / crossbow / javelin / flaming hand / whatever who is up in your grille and focusing on you is just as dangerous as someone with a sword. If they're focusing on you, them attacking doesn't open themselves up to you. But trying to shoot someone at a distance does require some focus and leaving yourself open.

Since this introduces a bit more element of risk to ranged attacks again, ranged can be made a little better again in compensation. For example, propulsive weapons can add your full Strength modifier instead of only half, crossbows can be rated with an effective Strength modifier, etc.

-----

Healing abilities should have specific text that they do not provoke, despite having the manipulate trait. This could even be a universal feature of the Healing keyword.

As I see it, the only particular requirements to be able to use a holy symbol are that you pay for the symbol, and that you be able to take the requisite Material Component action. This latter usually requires holding / presenting a symbol in one hand. So, I at least would say you can do it, provided that you mark the cost of the symbol off your money, and keep the symbol hand free (not holding another item).

If you want to use it while holding a 2H weapon or whatever, you would need to take the relevant feat.

I wonder if it's just a Pathfinder thing. The need to have specific items available for builds that are done out to level 20 or the character is ruined.

I have to admit, this is foreign to me, but I am not a hardcore PF player. We are very casual, even if we play on a weekly basis, and I don't think anyone demands or expects any particular magic item to be automatically available to them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a couple players even think beyond a level or two ahead of the 13 active in current campaigns.

That said, I do have players who ask how they might find something and no one else at the table has a problem with the idea of individual goals as part of the team concept.

And I really don't get hints of the must-have thinking in our 5E campaigns or in other games we play from time to time (SW:EotE, CoC, RM, SF).

I would never entertain a player who demanded various miscellaneous magic items to achieve some build combo. If they want that kind of thing, they can take the relevant feats to make magic items themself or beg some other PC to do so. (And even then I'd still vet the combo to make sure it's not broken.)

HOWEVER. The various "plus" items are baked into the game's math, and you need a certain amount of them to be competent. This isn't too terrible in PF1, while I wish the "required items" were "zero" I could deal with it being a few. Max bonus in all possible plus items just made you stupid good, so they weren't necessary and I generally didn't hand them out except for rare "story arc boss" rewards.

But this problem has gotten way worse in PF2. The plus items are way more hard coded than before. You need the maximum pluses you can get as early as the game will let you get them to remain at basic competence, because they balanced all the game's math around hardcore maxed optimization. If you don't stay on the item train, your chance of success plunges into the abyss.

That is the biggest problem that needs to be addressed.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I agree that setting up false expectations is a bad thing and they need to be very careful not to do that. But at the same time, there should be feedback on the upcoming changes. This isn't about impatience, it's about making sure the end product is the best it can be. Stopping taking all feedback at the playtest and doing everything else behind closed doors and only telling us what's going on when it's a done deal, would be a big mistake. For example, Resonance was widely rejected, Focus...

I'm not following you. I don't see where they are saying they are going to cease taking feedback.

Jason Buhlman wrote:

Far from it! Keep working on your scenarios and turning in feedback. The more data we have, the more certain we can be about the course we're taking.

This appears to be saying "yes feedback please."

They're just not revealing any more changes this week. When they DO reveal more changes, I don't see them saying they're not going to take feedback on that either. If I've missed a statement to the contrary, please point me in the right direction.

They are only taking feedback until the playtest ends with the start of the new year.

Jason said a few pages ago they were going to re-examine the system and provide more codification in the final rules, which mostly solves the issue for me. If the word Uncommon is followed by a tag or line item that provides the reason for that rules element being uncommon, and they are consistent in their tagging, and they present that list of tags with some discussion near the start of the book when presenting rarity, then that makes it fairly easy for both sides to judge what they want and don't want in their game. That breakdown and discussion in the published text of the book is all I really wanted.

For example: I never play in Golarion and always use my own settings. I usually do some sort of near east or middle eastern or fusion setting, because that's where my player group's interests tend to lie more than standard medieval European fantasy. If there is a tag for Uncommon (Regional: Eastern/Tian), then I can confidently say all items with that tag are Common in my setting.

Likewise: suppose they do make the unfortunate decision to make character options that are a little too powerful for their level, with the justification that they can just make it uncommon. While that is not a design philosophy I agree with, as long as they're consistent and have a tag like Uncommon (Power Level), I have more of a basis for judging those options. I can, for instance, say that in my game options with that tag need to be run by me, but if allowed will probably have their spell level increased by +1 or item level increased by +2.

Getting that extra codification makes the GM's job easier, compared to the undefined Uncommon of the Playtest rulebook. It makes it a lot easier to decide on a broad level what things will be allowed or disallowed or moved into the "needs approval" category at the start of a campaign. That in turn makes character creation and planning easier for the players, since they'll know up front, "The GM says tags A B and C are allowed for me to build around while tags X Y and Z are off limits or rare."

It would be pretty strange for Paranoia to state outright that you are your only ally during the effect if it weren't the case that you are also your own ally normally. It would also be strange for a druid or monster with Magic Fang to not be able to cast that on itself.

I'm fine with adding a level based factor to skills and attacks and saves and everything else. It's a LOT simpler than all the different metrics of PF1. I just want it to be HALF LEVEL, not full level, so your actual proficiency modifier and ability scores are not so overwhelmed by level. :)

To be fair, armor check penalty and armor speed penalty are also too severe. I'm inclined to believe none of the writers have ever even tried actually wearing heavy armor. Sure, it's a bit restrictive, but not to the crazy extents we see in the table, especially for someone trained in wearing it.

Heavy armor should only reduce speed by 5, not 10, while medium armor shouldn't reduce speed at all. ACP should top out at -2 for medium armor and -3 for heavy armor at worst. And armor should get positive traits too, like we see on weapons.

It's just a legacy holdover that wasn't well thought out in the first place when it was first instituted decades ago, and that the writers of PF2 just imported directly without even thinking about it.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for the druid to have a choice of taboos. Give em a bit more of a shamanic feel. They do have a semi-religious connection to nature and The World, but this will still feel different than just a variety of cleric. A taboo against metal armor would still be a viable taboo (but should probably be extended to other non-weapon worn metal gear to be consistent), but there should be other taboos to choose from too.

It would help if the Barbarian had something else going on for it, beyond just rage. I mean, a bard still has spellcasting when not using their performances. Even the ranger, as wretched as it is in PF2 atm, can alternate between their own hunted attacks and using either an animal or *snort laughs* the awesome-in-theory terrible-in-execution snares. If the barbarian gets a second schtick, a lesser but still important thing it can do, then it gets more depth and doesn't have to rely entirely on rage at all times in all combats.

I recommend maybe looking to the 4E Warden for some ideas here.

Also this goes for all classes, every class should have a couple things it's good at and can lean on. The alchemist in its 1.6 iteration should actually be getting at least two or three fields of study, since they're narrower and less good than the broader paths of something like the druid, broken into many more smaller categories. The monk should be getting something for free to help it distinguish beyond just dance up and hit, maybe a choice between getting ki for free or getting extra fighting styles for free. The fighter could get a choice between enhancing either proactive tactical abilities or reactive being great at AoO/tanking in addition to just moving up and using different moves to hit. Etc.

Ediwir wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.

To me this sounds like you’re asking for a Divine spell list overhaul.

absolutely not, we dont need every need Codzill ever again. the divine spell list is perfect for the cleric. the class pre 1.6 was perfectly balanced. channel for heals, ok combat abilities, and a very situational spell list. very similar to how the class functioned in AD&D 2nd.

the divine spell list only becomes a problem if you nerf channel. I agree with poster about divine sorcorers. the divine spell list isnt meant for a primary caster. they should just give divine sorcoers channel for free based on 1 + cha.

A divine sorcerer with channel is still just a worse cleric due to worse spellcasting, less armor, less hit points, and bloodline powers never rising above the mid tier domains at their best.

Also did you even play AD&D 2E? Its clerics actually had some awesome spellcasting. The old paradigm of spells improving with caster level was still in effect. And especially after Tome of Magic and the Forgotten Realms and to a lesser extent Planescape books, they had a great selection of stuff.

The PF2 divine list needs a serious overhaul, as do the majority of domain powers, but this can be done without unduly steamrolling over the other spell lists.

You should be able to craft items of up to your level + proficiency modifier. Are you an expert? Then you can craft up to level +1.

Pinned should definitely be added back to the game and would solve this issue nicely.

I believe backgrounds could be a lot more interesting, and a lot less restrictive, if you assembled them from several components. Each of these components would have a small impact on your character, and would add up to form an actual complete background.

WHERE did you come from? What is the culture or land from which you hail? This is an important part of any actual person's upbringing but is absent from the current system.

This sets your second starting language other than Common, rather than this being set by your Ancestry. It gives one trained skill that the player chooses from a small list associated to the chosen region.

WHAT did you do in your life before being an adventurer? What was your "job"?

Pick a profession like the Playtest backgrounds. Here, they come with an actual skill, as well as a Lore appropriate to the profession. It also comes with a free item or items, such as a skill kit (eg crafting tools) or something else of comparable value.

WHO were you most associated with? Are you still affiliated with them? How did or does this impact you?

Pick a guild, faction, town guard or whatever. A variety of options would be presented here. Each one would be associated to a mainly role-playing benefit rather than a strictly mechanical benefit. 5E has a lot of good examples in its backgrounds, like Hospitality with your peers.

You would also get a second Lore, appropriate to this group; eg, affiliation with the government of Cheliax could give Cheliax Lore.

HOW did the cumulative effect of these experiences and associations shape you? What impact did they have on your approach to how you go about your calling?

Pick one of the skills or Lores granted by your background choices to this point. That skill or Lore is raised to Expert and you get a skill feat in it.

WHEN did you train for adventure and set upon your new path in life? How old are you? Why are you an adventurer now, and not at some other point in your life?

Pick a floating ability boost. Flavor it how you like, because there isn't actually an age modifier. For example, intelligence can be represented as the raw gift of a young prodigy, the trained reason of an adult, or the sheer accumulation of facts over time by an elder; likewise, Constitution can be flavored as everything from youthful energy, to adult vigor, to an elder's wiry toughness.

Your class now gives a floating ability boost in addition to its key ability, to make up for backgrounds now only granting one boost.

WHY did you turn to the adventurer's path, or at least why did you refocus to where you are now headed? Did something happen to you and yours? What was your motivation? How has this affected you or how did it influence your final training for becoming an adventurer?

Pick a Campaign Trait. If these are not in use, pick a more general Trait from a list that would be presented in this section. Traits in PF2 should be geared toward abilities and passives rather than numerical modifiers. They should be about on the level of an ancestry feat, so can be things like "get a cantrip" or "get a few gear proficiencies" or the like.

If they don't want to go to the effort of coming up with general Traits, then in the absence of a Campaign Trait you would literally just pick another Ancestry Feat.

They said 1.6 would be the last big update of the playtest, not the last update period. So I doubt they'll be rewriting any more classes from the ground up, but there's still room for some clarifications and minor fixes, like re mutagens at the very least giving alchemists a feat to access the benefits of another field of study.

Rysky wrote:

Common - Available unless told otherwise

Uncommon - Ask the GM

Rare - Ask the GM so they can work it into the story later :3

Close to what we intended, but I do want to add a caveat or two...

Common - Available unless told otherwise
Uncommon - Available to specific builds, otherwise ask the GM
Rare - Given by the GM when appropriate for the story, possibly the culmination of a PC story

The thought here was

Common - 100% player agency
Uncommon - 50% player/50% GM agency
Rare - 100% GM agency

There are clearly a few of you who do not feel this system is necessary and that is great! You have clearly identified the problem and have taken steps to fix it in your games (or not if you are OK with open access). While that works for you, it has been identified as a huge problem for many GMs and something that a simple tool like this might do wonders to help fix. If you don't need it, just like any other rule in the game, you can ignore it, but this is one that I feel very strongly about including the in game.

I would still request that each uncommon option have a subheading listing why it is uncommon. It will make a huge difference to many people if they can see whether something is listed as uncommon because it circumvents obstacles, vs if it involves a lot of bookkeeping, vs if it is identified as a potential source of personal friction, vs if there are no actual perceived issues but you just wanted to make access a reward for going with certain build options.

The problem is that Uncommon is trying to do too much at once, without any reasons given case by case for why something is uncommon.

Is it uncommon because it touches a subsystem or ethical quandary that is a touchy issue or ignored at some tables, like alignment or mental domination?

Is it uncommon because it circumvents obstacles and puzzles in adventures, like teleport?

Is it uncommon because it is too powerful for its level, like... I don't know, no spell in PF2 is powerful other than Heal, and if this was the issue shouldn't they just bump it up a spell level?

Is it uncommon because it's fiddly and adds tracking and remembering stuff to the table, like contingency?

Is it uncommon because who the heck knows what the designers were thinking, like detect scrying?

Just slapping uncommon on everything means it is trying to do all of these things with no explanation of why. And many of these things are areas where many groups have no issues and would be just fine with these spells at the table. But with everything being lumped into one overstretched mechanic without explicit differentiation, everything has to be sorted on a case by case basis and becomes a giant headache at the table.

This hurts players just trying to make a character. It is a burden on GMs who are put back in the position of having to vet everything case by case and a lot of GMs will blanket ban uncommon rather than take on that extra workload even if a lot of the stuff schlumped under uncommon is stuff they'd likely actually be just fine with, which again circles back around to hurting players.

This is why I keep saying uncommon is a bad thing. It's trying to do too much for too many different reasons. I'd much rather just extend the robust tagging system and have advice and discussion in the book regarding certain of those tags.

I would say that if you're aware of the opponent you have reactions, and if you're surprised you don't until your first turn comes up, but PF2 doesn't have rules for surprise...

How about the following as an alternate version of Channel?

Channel Energy
You gain the ability to channel positive or negative energy, depending on your deity. Some deities allow you to choose whether to channel negative or positive energy. Once you choose, you can't change the type of energy you channel, short of an ethical shift or divine intervention.

If you choose positive, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Heal at the spell level of that slot. If you choose negative, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Harm at the spell level of that slot. You must have Heal or Harm on your spell list to use Channel in this way.

Additionally, you can spend 2 spell points to cast Heal if positive or Harm if negative, heightened to a spell level of half your character level rounded up. When you gain this ability, you gain 2 spell points.

The Sorcerer desperately needs to be reconcepted, because the other casting classes are eating its lunch. It needs a core identity of its own, and its abilities need to be powered up to compare against the other classes. As much as many of us would like to see it folded with the Kineticist or Magus it's pretty obvious Paizo won't even consider that. So I've summed up some changes I think would help the Sorcerer stand out and find its way, in a way I think they might at least consider. I feel this would make it solid enough to remain competitive even if they do what's right and give all the prepared casters a version of Arcanist casting, to finally put the anti-fun headache of pure Vancian in the grave where it belongs.

Basic Traits and Proficiencies
A moderate change: the Sorcerer should be proficient in light armor and should have 8 HP per level, the same as the Bard. The Sorcerer doesn't cloister themselves away in study and instead goes about the world using their innate power, so shouldn't be as squishy as the Wizard.

Spell List
A big change: the spell list granted by the bloodline should be in addition to the Arcane list. All Sorcerers are rooted in Arcane, but gain the flexibility to mix and match their spell repertoire between Arcane and another list as determined by their heritage.

Of the current bloodlines, I would assign Divine to Celestial and Diabolic; Occult to Aberrant and Demonic; and Primal to Draconic and Fey. Imperial would get the special trait of only being Arcane, but learning 1 extra spell per level.

Skills
A minor side effect of the above: the bonus skills shift slightly according to each bloodline's new spell list.

Expanded Bloodline Thematics
A minor change: the Sorcerer should be granted the language associated with their bloodline as a bonus language.

They could also get a small bonus to all checks (including AC since that's weirdly defined as a check in PF2) against creatures sharing their heritage. Alternately to the more universal bonus, just make it being able to roll twice on Recall Knowledge checks with relation to creatures of the relevant type.

I consider these minor benefit that shouldn't cost a feat, since it's the sort of thing that usually only comes up once a level most of the time, if that. However, it is very flavorful, and evokes that specialness of inborn traits in fantasy like Parseltongue.

Imperial would need a different minor benefit because obviously "humanoid" is too broad and powerful compared to the other options. An extra skill / skill feat would probably be appropriate, representing humanoid flexibility and specifically that of the ancient human / Azlanti mage lords implied to be the root of the bloodline.

Bloodline Passives
A moderate change: when you feat into a new bloodline power, it should also come with an ability that you always have and don't have to spend spell points on like the power itself does. This helps represent more of that heritage coming through as you magically and spiritually evolve closer to and resonate with your heritage. It also helps make up for sorcerer powers not really being the best, something I don't see changing, as much I'd hope otherwise.

Weaker or more situational powers can be balanced by getting a stronger passive that is useful more of the time.

Spellcasting
The biggest change: the Sorcerer only accumulates new spell slots up to third tier. After this point, at 7th level and every 2 levels thereafter, when the Sorcerer gains a new spell tier, they shift all their spell slots up a tier. So a 7th level Sorcerer has only 2nd tier, 3rd tier, and 4th tier spell slots. They have a good number of spell slots, but not the vast quantity belonging to a prepared caster.

As usual for every spellcaster, a spell slot of any given tier can be used to cast a lower tier spell.

All spells the Sorcerer casts are heightened to the spell slot from which they are cast.

Cantrips
Continuing the biggest change: the Sorcerer only gains or elevates spell slots at odd levels. At even levels, the Sorcerer gains an additional cantrip and 1 spell point.

The Sorcerer can spend 1 spell point when casting a cantrip to heighten it to 2 spell tiers higher than they could currently cast, because cantrips all seem to heighten at every other tier instead of every tier. So, our 7th level Sorcerer from before (4th tier spells) can spend 1 spell point to cast a cantrip at 6th tier.

As a consequence, because the Sorcerer can access any spell list, all cantrips on all spell lists are published with heightening options up to 12th tier.

This Sorcerer's vast number of cantrips and huge capacity for spell point powers, and ability to over-heighten their cantrips, help make up for their lower number of spell slots. This also gives them a vastly different feel than every other spellcasting class, setting them apart as their own playstyle. :)

Dire Ursus wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

So everything shuts down if enervation drops your level below the level where you can get it, including class features (eg, a sneak attack damage increase) and martial feats and skill feats. This should probably be called out more explicitly.

This is wrong isn't it? It specifically states "This applies only to actions, activities, free actions, and reactions"

Meaning sneak attack wouldn't be affected. It's not an action, activity, free action or reaction. Passive class features are unaffected it would seem.

Correct, Passive abilities, even Feats, are exempt.

For example, if you have a level 12th Fighter with Agile Grace and Certain Strike, and you get hit with Enervated 3, you lose access to Certain Strike (because it's an Action), but not Agile Grace (because it's not an Action/Reaction/Activity).

Sneak Attack falls into this as well, it's unaffected. Glancing through, I only found one Action that could be potentially headscratching: Quick Alchemy. Because I'm not sure if being Enervated would affect the level of items you can use. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Oi, yeah I see now, but that's a bit of a mess. I'd rather they just unilaterally removed abilities from the levels enervated away, so it doesn't slow the game to a crawl while evaluating each individual feature.

Also, can monster abilities have a level attached, please?

My group and I would agree on a number of these, but disagree on a few, at least partially.

Ability Score Generation: My group actually really liked the PF2 method, tbh. We just want classes to also give a floating +2, so you can potentially get to 18 in something that's not your class's key ability score.

The Level Modifier: My group likes the concept of level modifier as a vast simplification over independent progressions for BAB, each individual saving throw, spending skill ranks, etc. HOWEVER, my group would also VERY STRONGLY prefer if it was half level instead of full level. At full level, the level modifier washes out everything else about your character - the UTEML, the ability scores, the items, the everything. Half level would allow it to be a meaningful contribution but not diminish everything else, and would allow more of a feeling of progression than 5E's quarter level.

UTEML: As above, it gets washed out by level modifier. Even if level modifier does get reduced, we would still like to see Untrained at +0, Trained at +2, Expert at +4, Master at +6, and Legendary at +8. This would allow it to feel a lot more significant. We also feel you should be able to get Expert in skills at 1st level, whether by just double spending skill allotments or by some other means. We also feel that instead of skill feats being a separate independent progression, going to Expert, Master or Legend in a skill should just come with a skill feat. If you want more, that's what the general feats are for.

As for gating, ehhhh, I like the idea but the execution in the actual bestiary and campaign is pretty bad. What I would suggest is that the gate not be set higher than 1 tier below the highest tier currently available. So since we think Expert should be able to happen at 1st, your highest gate for a 1st level challenge is Trained. At 7th level when Master kicks in, the gate can be raised to Expert. At 15th level when Legendary kicks in, the gate can be raised to Master. However, like you mention with the example of the magic mirror, they need to give an example of what this represents. What action is in the designer's head? That gives way more room for adjudicating players attempting other things. Likewise, the book should probably explicitly encourage GMs to look favorably on logical or creative and fun alternate solutions.

Criticals on Threshold: I'm a bit split from my group here, because my players like crit/fumble on margin of 10, while I'm less sold on it and see the problems it causes in the math and basic design of the entire game. But yes, I'd at least like stuff to be more even here. On non-damaging spells and abilities, they should strive to make the "succeeded on save" effect as roughly equivalent to one-third to one-half the "failed the save" effect as possible, to better map against damage spells.

DCs and Modifiers for Everything: My group would strongly prefer for spells and breath weapons and whatnot to always be rolled by the attacker, rather than having saving throws. Players like rolling dice for their own abilities! 4E's Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses were the single best part about that entire system.

The Bugbears: Agreed.

Skills as Initiative: My group likes it in concept but is lukewarm in practice. There's rarely an opportunity to actually use non-Perception skills without meta forcing. No one likes that Perception can't be raised except by certain classes. No one likes Sense Motive being part of Perception either, while on the topic.

Exploration Mode: We've also been greatly disappointed by the execution of exploration mode, and the complete and total lack of dev attention to it in updates or even acknowledgement of it whatsoever in forum posts or interviews of any kind. We really wanted this to be great, we were looking forward to it being handled a lot better than PF1! But it's a huge mess.

Hero Points: My group likes Resolve from Starfinder and wanted that instead of the Hero Point implementation we got here. Resolve would also easily fold in Spell Point abilities and activated abilities of strong items instead of Resonance / Focus.

On the Matter of Ms Brunel: It would be good in general for each monster to come with some basic tactical advice of how they will usually fight when not under the command of a leader of differing intelligence. Notably, this would help newer GMs who can be unsure of how to run the game.

The Layout: We like the first page of each class description and then it falls apart from there. Powers need to be printed under the feat or class ability that grants them, or at the very least at the end of the class description. Skill feats need to be printed under the skill to which they are attached. The constant references to other pages elsewhere in the book need to be reduced and tightened up, and yeah, the Dispel example is a particularly bad one.

Variable Attacks of Opportunity: We really think some kind of simple universal AoO needs to return, even if it's, say, tied to becoming Expert in the weapon you are using. (Thus, Wizards would not get AoO, because they don't get Expert in a weapon.) Also, this can still encourage more mobility by not proccing when you are just moving around a creature but still in its reach, because combatants circling each other is awesome: instead, it should only proc for trying to move away.

Fighters can still be the best at AoO and get abilities which augment it, let them move to AoO, etc. Other classes can get abilities that give them AoO under broader circumstances appropriate to the class as well, such as a rogue getting AoO when someone becomes flat footed.

Spell Components: We like this too. We particularly like how Inspire Courage works as well.

Of note, enervation doesn't just stop spellcasting! It wrecks fighters, barbarians and etc as well:

In addition, you treat your level as though it were lowered by your enervated value (to a minimum of 1st level) when determining which spells you can cast and which abilities you can use. This applies only to actions, activities, free actions, and reactions you gained from feats and class features, and only those that have a level prerequisite.

So everything shuts down if enervation drops your level below the level where you can get it, including class features (eg, a sneak attack damage increase) and martial feats and skill feats. This should probably be called out more explicitly.

But this is definitely an area where enervation is lopsided, because aside from spells enemy abilities are not given a level in the playtest bestiary. Whirlwind Attack is a feat with a level, so a player can lose it to enervation, but a marilith seemingly can't lose its ability to act like a blender.

(EDIT: Partially ninja'd, darn!)

-----

On a side note to the OP, might I recommend not always tossing the word janky around in posts like this and many others? It's unprofessional and I doubt it makes the devs inclined to listen to you. On many occasions I notice you raise some good points about the wording of rules but then you undercut it with inflammatory language.

If not "moar feats" (a rather dismissive way of putting it, tbh) then classes should get more actual class abilities back.

And I still firmly advocate each class being able to do its "one big thing," ie its path, without having to eat into class feats save to specialize or otherwise improve that thing.

We are going to start Part 3 this week, which is explicitly trying to see how well Channel Energy gets you through fights, and 1.6 just slashed the channel uses dramatically. That COULD make it very useful to test the change, but unless the survey adds a "Update 1.6" answer to the appropriate question, that data is probably lost.

I can vouch that having less channel uses WILL dramatically impact chapter 3. Only one of my players was willing to play a cleric, so I waived the requirement that there be two in the party. I ended up having to skip wave 4 because the cleric and party at large were basically out of resources after wave 3, and I felt testing the actual boss was more important.

I'm willing to accept a holy symbol having a price instead of just being a simple painting or engraving, such as including the cost of a bottle of holy water as part of consecration as an official empowered emblem of the deity. But that is included in its monetary cost and shouldn't actually cost a meaningful character resource.

And as before... Emblazoning a symbol shouldn't even be a feat. It should just be a +gp modifier to the cost of a holy symbol that you then apply to a weapon or shield or whatever. At most it should be a ritual.

One huge thing that would help here is that if the "path" you chose at level 1 for each class leveled up with you and didn't consume feat slots to hit the key points.

For example, say you're a Ranger who picks animal companion as your "path." Well, now you get all the necessary upgrades to stay competitive as you level up. The feats you would spend on animal companion in the playtest can now go to other options, like snares or two weapon or whatever. Likewise, a two weapon Ranger would get upgrades to that at the same levels the animal Ranger gets upgrades to their path, but could spend feats on the animal if they want.

This can be done by tagging each class feat with its associated path, like the druid currently does. Then at the relevant levels, you get a bonus class feat which has to be a feat from your path. That way, even characters with the same path can branch out and be different from each other by choosing different options for customization and specialization, once splats start being published later and there are more options to pick from. You just need to make sure each class and each path gets robust options at the same levels.

An archetype can replace your path. Archetypes are more focused than base classes, and it's okay if all characters of a given archetype get the same options at the same levels, and I'm also fine with a character only having one archetype because archetype combos were a recipe for cheese in PF1. But because the path is just giving bonus feats, well, those feats are still there. Our Ranger who takes an archetype can still have an animal, because the animal feats are still there, and can be taken with class feats.

In this setup, assuming multi class remains feat based, multi class would still consume class feats rather than replacing your path. Here you really are splitting your focus, that is the nature of dipping another class. Our Ranger could take the animal path and multiclass druid but wouldn't have an archetype, or she could take an archetype and multiclass but probably wouldn't have an animal. That's acceptable to me.

Yeah, we were hoping Quick Prep would make the wizard a little more approachable for less experienced players while giving something else fun but not too intimidating to do during a break while treat wounds and repair are going on (there isn't always a new item to identify or the like). Given it was an extremely popular feat choice already,the difference is that the ability is something from the start (and easier for the new player to learn the wizard that way rather than pick it up later on) and it frees up a level 4 feat for something else. Now if people wanted us to abolish or limit Quick Preparation altogether, we hadn't realized that before. Jason has mentioned a potential survey just about updates, so that's something we can ask a broader group to see how many agree.

The problem isn't Quick Preparation per se. So many of us prefer Arcanist style casting over pure Vancian that anything which brings prepared casters like the Wizard back closer to that is a good thing. Frankly, if you won't use Arcanist casting for some reason, I'd prefer Quick Prep on the cleric and druid as well.

The problem is this happening in the absence of a meaningful fix to the sorcerer, and Paizo seemingly still way over-valuing spontaneous casting. Without improving the sorcerer, what Quick Prep does is let the wizard etc eat the sorcerer's lunch, by also being able to use any of their spells known at almost any time in any slot - and they have access to way, way more spells known than the sorcerer.

If you give the sorcerer a stronger core and identity, build in more and stronger powers, and unshackle spontaneous heightening, that solves the problem. Quick Prep doesn't have to be nerfed or removed at all.

I like the somatic action fix.

Also it looks like all spellcasters got an extra cantrip slot. Good I suppose, could have been a thing given to sorcerers though.

Alchemist is almost completely rewritten and looks a lot better in most areas. Still some pain points for me.
* It doesn't use resonance to make items, so performing class duties doesn't keep it from wearing or using magic items.
* It gets to choose a path, so you don't have to be a bomber, though that is still an available path; also, high level bombs now exist so bombs are useful after level 3 to non-alchemists.
* Bomber alchemists come out the gate with the ability to avoid splashing their allies with their bombs now.
* Chirurgeon's base ability is pretty terribad. Some of the higher level Chirurgeon abilities are good though, like getting free bonus healing items on top of what you would normally make.
* I'm still not a fan of onset times on Mutagens, but at least the new Mutagenist can mostly ignore those. I'd still prefer this research field to get a different benefit and for the onset times to go away, or at least be universally reduced to "onset: start of your next turn." Maybe consider instead the benefit of Mutagenists increasing any bonuses from their mutagens by 1.
* I'm glad poison alchemist is a thing, but poisons seriously need improvement and expansion. In particular, they shouldn't be expended on /attack/, they should be expended on /hit/.
* A bad thing: the alchemist is MISSING a feat to dip into the other fields of study. The bard got a feat for this, the alchemist needs one too.
* Splash damage is still only 1 at all levels... I really want splash damage from a bomb to be half the main damage.

Barbarian is somewhat better. It importantly advances in weapon proficiency faster and can go to Master. But Rage now weirdly has a random duration... So, it is a cumulative difficulty Flat Check each round to keep raging. you have a 20% chance to drop out of rage after 2 turns, a 45% chance to drop out of rage after 3 turns, a 70% chance to drop out of rage after 4 turns, and a 95% chance to drop out of rage after 5 turns and each turn thereafter. I think this works out to being the same or better overall except for that 1 time in 5 you stop raging after 2 turns, but it's kind of (a lot) fiddly.

Bard is better. The feat prerequisites for all the bardic muse feats are hugely relaxed. Now you don't have to do a strict feat chain, you just have to be a member of that muse, and there is a new feat that makes you count as an additional muse while also granting a 1st level feat from the new muse, allowing you to qualify for later feats without having to chain up to them.

Clerics got a nerf that was probably necessary. Channel Energy is now just Cha mod/day instead of 3+Cha mod/day. I think I'd prefer if it was just a spell point ability and added +2 spell points on top of the spell points you already get with your domain, and could be flexibly used with your other domain powers. However, clerics do benefit from the aforementioned somatic component thing, being able to cast with shield and weapon in hand.

Wild Shape Druids look like they're probably greatly improved, including the relevant spells shifting spell level. Not really anything given to other druids though. I will still have to give a critical math focused look at the revised polymorph / form spells to see if they are still AC / attack modifier debuffs like published or if they are better now.

Fighters didn't get paths like the other classes. :( But at least stances are no longer Opens.

Monks see an improvement in the handling of ki. Also, Ki Strike is enormously improved, and there is now an alternate 1st level path into ki, Ki Rush, which is also very very good. The Str based monk still has no way to get AC like a Dex based monk, so eh. Monks didn't get paths like the other classes. :(

Paladins are still reactive, not proactive. :| At least you can now be Any Good, but... Argh.
* Retributive Strike is now the LG paladin ability. It has been completely rewritten and now has 15 ft range. It no longer goes off before the provoking action nor can it prevent that action, so it is going to be easier to track, at least. It instead grants damage resistance to the target ally, and if the enemy is in your reach, you still get the punitive attack. So, at least this is better overall, even without the corner case of ever so rarely preventing an attacking outright.
* NG gets a probably better version of the above that instead of giving a punitive attack, might ACTUALLY cancel the provoking attack and debuffs them if they don't cancel.
* CG's version is the worst, As Is Tradition. :p
* The Oaths are still terrible.
* A few notable feat taxes were added, like Ranged Reprisal which should just be baked into Retributive Strike, or Quick Block when instead they should have just granted the paladin a bonus reaction per turn for their path power.
* Still no baked in Smite Evil. Instead it's been added as a level 12 feat tax, and for some reason is LG only. :( I mean this is trivial to house rule in the final version but I shouldn't have to, especially when this is being presented against the feats for the other two alignments.

Rangers, hm. Hunter's Edge improves Hunt Target a bit, but the flurry option is still bad. All rangers should take a non-flurry Edge unless they are heavily building toward lots of attacks per round.

For the Rogue they expanded on the two alternates to "Dex to damage" a bit so they're more viable now! I like these.

Sorcerer keeps getting the shaft, especially in light of what just happened to the wizard. They get a 10th level feat tax in Bloodline Heightening that should have just been a base part of the class. Still have to choose only two spells to spontaneously heighten aside from that feat tax. Still weak and insufficient powers.

Diabolic Bloodline is at least decent. But Diabolic Edict isn't as good as I thought at first glance, since on a reread it only affects a WILLING target. On first read, I thought you could toss out the second half of the power as a debuff on an enemy, which seems fair considering it costs a spell point.

Wizards now get the single most powerful Wizard feat of all as a base class feature from 1st level, which makes them infinitely more flexible than the sorcerer. Um, okay... I mean, I like it, and you all know I don't like strict vancian so bringing it closer to Arcanist casting is good, but. To have that happen in a vacuum of meaningful improvement to the sorcerer is a little bewildering. They are apparently hugely over-valueing spontaneous casting. The sorcerer just needs a total reconcept at this point.

Animal companions got improved a touch, they at least get better AC now and barding is also a touch better so they aren't as made of tissue paper as before. However, it kind of looks like barding is de-emphasized at higher levels due to all animals just innately getting an item (???) bonus to AC as they level up, which won't stack with the barding. That's kind of a weird decision.

At least it's a start though. I'd like to see animals lose their restriction on item bonuses. I'd also still like to see companions get three actions, so a companion beast isn't somehow weirdly slower than a normal creature of its kind. I realize the concern is companion players getting longer turns but companion turns are much faster and simpler than actual character turns, and the companion's actions are still not as good as a character's actions, not to mention the character with a companion will also have less effective actions than the same character who built for anything other than a companion. It really balances out, just let them have three actions for their pet. You can just say that characters can't have more than one companion, or if there are multiple companions they have to divvy up the three bonus actions among them, or something.

Still no proactive Champaladin smite, they're still weirdly locked into a reactive role. Bleh. Well that's a bummer.

Jumped straight to looking at that first, so now to look over everything else... I do like somatic components being made easier for everyone though. So a wizard holding a fetish or orb or a staff that's not an Official Magic Spell Staff (TM) can actually cast spells now, that's a plus.

The Sideromancer wrote:

Interesting. I will frequently go to sites somewhat like this as a way of answering "is there enough here to be worth getting into?"

Going to sites such as this are not the way to entice.

I would tend to expect the official forums for a game to be the primary place to get info and impressions about that game, tbh.

How did your PCs have Wish? The party is 17th level for this adventure, not 20th, and doesn't have access to capstone feats.

Cthulhu can indeed contact minds as a free action, but its warping is a reaction, so it can only warp one PC per turn.

Typically, magically bound Guardian beasts in fantasy don't have to deal with such trivialities as "food" or "potty time" or "aging."

It taking seek actions every turn forever is also weird and not necessary, UNLESS the party gets into a fight in the Hall of Mirrors, the immediately preceding room. That would let the kraken know something is up and it would be on active alert for a while.

It would just lie on the bottom of its cramped shallow pool in a state of depressed malaise, facing up with the "keeping a lookout" exploration tactic. Since PF2 doesn't use opposed checks and the expectation is one party rolls against the other party's DC of 10 + their rating, any PCs who sneak in roll Stealth against the kraken. If they pass, the kraken doesn't know they're there and doesn't have a reason to Seek them. If alerted by a fight in the mirror room, it probably WOULD seek at the entrance as Colette suggested.

Because of the weird layout of the room and a walkway being between the PC's and the kraken, I would suggest that if party members aren't sneaking but also aren't blatantly making noise, they're "passively stealthy." In this case the kraken rolls its Perception against 10 + their Stealth rating as they enter. As above, if it doesn't notice them on this roll, it doesn't have a reason to scan the room. Even if they put it on alert, if they successfully get through the entrance and move away from the entrance, it won't thereafter notice them as long as they stay on the other side of the room and don't make noise, because its Seek only covers the entrance.

If the PCs trigger the kraken, it is compelled to fight them. However, it is also an intelligent creature that hates its captor. I think if my party triggers it, I'm going to have the kraken actually command them to leave the room. If they do, it will stop fighting as soon as no one is technically inside the room and Smaug for a bit, talking to the PC's around the corner. Likewise, if it's on active alert, if it notices the PCs on approach if they huddle in the entrance to assess the room before entering, it will speak to them before they enter. It will explain the binding on it and ask them to remove it, promising to leave and let them at the vault if they do, because it has no loyalty to Whark and every reason to exploit the technical loopholes in its binding.

You're pretty much exactly right. And being better for Dex dumpers is only really relevant at low levels before the level up stat increases start rolling in.

This is why a lot of us want to see various armors get positive traits that benefit you, much like how weapons get various positive traits. That could go a long way to making choosing armor more fun and less disappointing, especially for those of us who like plotting out builds and finding synergy between various options.

I didn't get an answer to this before the other thread was locked. Are they really going to end the playtest and stop taking feedback after December? The schedule is so rushed. Most groups won't be finished with all seven adventures by then unless they start skipping adventures. My group can only meet every two weeks, and while we do go for like 6-8 hours at a time it's still taking two sessions to do each adventure, so only 1 adventure a month.

Should I just wrap up my Doomsday campaign with the new year because there's no point to proceeding?

For mechanical distinctiveness between the three, I'm imagining something starting with these points and going from there:

Chaotic is the one with all the reactions, like Retributive Strike etc, and gets bonus reactions per turn. It is in the moment so better able to respond to what others do. It is probably more mobile.

Neutral is the one with much heavier casting, and by side effect is the best healer and buffer of the three. If only one of them gets Channel or Domains like a cleric, it's this one. They balance foresight with flexibility.

Lawful is the proactive Smiter, acting mostly in its own turn and in a more set way. It also is the one with Auras to enforce its principles over local reality, and Vows that power it up - but hopefully in a much more flexible and thematic way than the utterly awful ones from the Playtest Book!

Yeah, in some cases spells have a fairly high chance of the save being made, sometimes even if you aren't targeting the foe's best save, but this is offset significantly by almost all saving throw spells retaining some effect on a successful save, allowing you to inflict minor debuffs or decent damage while you try to get something stronger to stick. This is a dynamic I FAR prefer to save-or-lose from PF1.

I agree with the philosophy, and yeah anything that amounts to "save or die" should only fully go off on a crit fail on the save, but I don't agree with the execution. In practice, the majority of spells still do basically nothing meaningful on a successful save, and often even on a failed save. For a fairly significant percentage of spells, the current Failed Save effect or something approaching it should be the Save Succeeded effect, with a more useful effect on Failed Save in between that and Critical Fail.

Well, you may want to know the plan DOES seem to be for only the LG version to be called Paladin in the final book. They just don't want to have to errata the bazillion times the word Paladin appears in the playtest document so it's Any Good for now. But the final class will be called something else, with a LG Paladin subclass.

So are they going to stop taking feedback from the playtest after the end of December? Most groups won't finish by then. Mine certainly won't unless we skip adventures.

Super positive on all of this. Especially the Alchemist and Paladin news, and the overall implication that every class will have paths or subclasses like I've been advocating all this time. :) Thank you.