CalebTGordan's page

Do you like Leadership in your Pathfinder? Do you get a kick out of bossing people around? Then this is the book for you!

Fellow Travelers: Cohorts, Followers, & Hirelings
Leadership has its perks!
Greatness and glory attract the attention of those looking for a leader to command them!

All those who accomplish great things attract followers that wish to join them in their journey. The burden of leadership shouldn’t cause problems at your game table, but instead, be a rewarding experience that helps tell the story of your adventure. In myth and legend, the trusted companion is a common theme, from Enkidu to Sancho Panza and even into today with sidekicks like Robin. These cohorts chose to follow the main characters on their journey and had an important part to play in the narrative.

The Fellow Travelers line of books from Fat Goblin Games offers new or expanded options for your Pathfinder Second Edition game all about the companions, familiars, cohorts, hirelings, and other allies we gather to us on our path through the world. Fellow Travelers: Cohorts, Followers, & Hirelings provides an all-new use for the Diplomacy skill to allow PCs to recruit followers, as well as an archetype for leaders, rules for creating your own cohorts, and a selection of NPC hirelings whose services can be hired out or recruited into followers. This is perfect for the character that wants to lead others, or the Gamemaster that wants to offer more services for downtime activities.

Check it out now!

2) There wasa clarification about Hardness / Dent

You should just apply the damage. If equals hardness they take 1 dent, if double hardness they take 2 dents

Was this a direct clarification on the shield block reaction?

Because if so, they need to change the wording in the reaction.

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

(bold is mine)

The RAW states clearly that the shield only takes damage up to its Hardness and not a point more. Thus a shield cannot take more than 1 dent when using the Shield Block reaction. If the intention is for the shield to take more damage and create the risk of 2 dents they need to reword the reaction.

(EDIT: Also note the rule says "possibly becoming dented or broken." It doesn't mention being destoryed.)

Also from Dented and Broken Items:

Broken is a condition that affects objects. A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses.

(bold is mine)

This means that you can't use the Raise a Shield action if the shield is broken, and thus cannot use the Shield Block reaction. This also means that taking the two bolded rules together you cannot break a shield by using the Raise Shield reaction.

According to Paizo's clarification, shields are much more fragile than what is presented in this analysis.

10 damage to a heavy steel shield will, in fact, generate two Dents and break the shield.

Then their RAW does not match RAI and the Shield Block reaction needs to be rewritten.

Shields are less viable and a much weaker option if they take more than one dent with raise shield. The same is said if you can raise a broken shield to block an attack and risk destroying it. Making shields that disposable makes the Shield Block reaction unattractive and discourages players from using one of the shield's cool features.

I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that RAW says that shields only take up to their hardness in damage when blocking an attack. I'll also argue that the rules state that you cannot raise a broken shield and thus cannot use the Shield Block reaction with a broken shield.

I started writing this two weeks ago and had some distractions, so it might be a little behind in the community discussions.

Shields are a classic item of fantasy, and have been around in TTRPG for a very, very long time. In the Pathfinder Playtest we have a new set of rules around shields and how they work. In this deep dive, I'll be examining the RAW, RAI, math, and any mechanics related to them.

The questions I'll want to answer are:

• Do they work as intended?
  
• Are they viable at all levels of play?
  
• Who benefits from them?
  
• Are there any break points with these mechanics?

Personally, I have a bias towards shields not being disposable. This can be seen in the book I wrote for Fat Goblin Games, "Call To Arms: Shields" where I go over how their construction and use varied from era to era, but generally they were built to be highly durable and able to withstand amazing punishment. After all, a broken shield meant a broken body and no soldier carrying one would rely on something that would fall apart and allow an attack through. Spartans either carried their shields home or were carried home on them. Probably the largest myth is the breakable Viking shield, but such shields would have only been for training or ritual. Real Rounds were tough laminated three layer plywood with a raw hide face, metal rim, and metal boss that even great axes had trouble getting through. This isn't to say that shields were indestructible, but it would have been rare to see them be damaged to a complete useless state.

That said, this isn't a simulation game meant to copy real life. In fact in talking to Paizo developers in the past about such things a few of them brought up that they were often looking more at popular culture than they were real world situations. I can respect that because it means they are designing the game towards a pop culture type of experience, where we are able to play out the same big action fight scenes that we see in that space.

Now that I have that out of the way, lets get into the rules:

A shield requires the use of one of your hands. It grants its bonuses to AC and TAC only if you use an action to Raise a Shield. This grants the shield’s bonuses to AC and TAC as a circumstance bonus until your next turn starts. The shield’s check penalty applies whenever you’re wielding the shield, regardless of whether the shield is raised.

While you have a shield raised, you can use the Shield Block reaction to reduce damage you take by the shield’s Hardness (3 for wooden shields or 5 for steel).

These are the basic rules. Shields no longer provide a passive constant bonus to AC. You must use an Action to raise your shield to gain a bonus to both Armor Class and Touch Armor Class. I think the addition of TAC bonus on shields is great, and balances out the drawback of having to use an action to activate the shield. It must be noted that this is a circumstance bonus, and in the Playtest circumstance bonuses do not stack. Do not waste your actions taking cover and raising a shield, but instead just pick whichever will give you the better advantages.

The check penalty on shields is always active, not just when it is raised, but shields can also be stowed and drawn like weapons and items allowing you to avoid those penalties if you have the time and wish to do so. I do want to note that the rules don't seem to point out that you can draw or stow a shield with the Interact action in the shield specific rules. It seems to be assumed that you can do so with pointing out that it requires the use of one hand. While possibly redundant, it may be needful to add that shields can be drawn and stowed.

The first entry for shields mentions the Raise a Shield action and the Shield Block reaction. Lets take a look at those.

(NOTE: When symbols are needed I'll be using > for action, >> for double action, and >>> for triple action. <> will be used for reaction.)

Requirements: You are wielding a shield.

You position your shield to protect yourself. When you have Raised a Shield, you gain its listed bonuses to AC and TAC as circumstance bonuses and you can use the Shield Block reaction. Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

When you are wielding a shield you may use the Raise a Shield action. This grants you the AC and TAC bonuses. You must use this action each round you want to benefit from your shield. I can see this coming up in an action economy's order of operations. Raising a shield in the start of a round may help if your actions trigger a damaging reaction. Never forget that you lose the benefits at the start of your turn.

Having the shield's protection be an active thing on the part of the player is going to mean that builds that rely on them will have fewer actions for attacks or abilities. We'll have to dive into the math later to see if the benefit is worth the cost.

The Shield Block reaction is where I've seen some confusion but the confusion appears to come from thinking that certain terms still have their PF1 meanings.

Where there isn't confusion is in the trigger, but I want to still look at that. The shield must be raised, meaning you used the Raise a Shield action, and you must be taking damage from a physical attack. This means that attacks from spells most likely will not trigger this. I can see where they are thematically aiming with this, as the warrior raising their shield to swat away or absorb an attack is a pretty iconic image. Or, to put it another way, this is very pop-culture. This is further shown in the first sentence, especially with a strong word like snap.

The confusion comes from the next part: "Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken."

Let's break this down. First, this reaction is intended to prevent the character from taking damage. The amount of damage prevented is up to the shield's Hardness. Where many interpretations start to break down is with the shield taking the damage instead, and the note that it may become dented or broken. In the section on damaging items we learn the following: "If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent." I bolded "equal" because I think this is where most people are getting hung up. The Playtest removed HP for items completely. If you look at page 354 you will see that materials no longer have Hit Points. Its all about moving an item from dented, to broken, and finally to destroyed. Next, hardness isn't a type of damage reduction like it is in PF1. Its a target number, and any time that target number is hit the item is dented.

This means that if a shield is blocking an amount of damage equal to its hardness it gains 1 dent because the damage hit the target number for that item. You will only gain 1 dent per block because the shield only blocks an amount of damage equal to its Hardness or less. Anything beyond the Hardness goes to the character wielding it. I will agree that there might need to be some tightening of the language, but the confusion seems to be with semantics and term definition.

Shields have no exceptions to the dent rules. This means a second dent will give it the broken condition and a third will destroy it. However, the shield would have to be actively sundered in order to destroy it. Once broken the shield cannot be used to perform the Raise a Shield action or the Shield Block reaction. This can be seen under the Broken condition section on page 175:

Broken is a condition that affects objects. A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses.

Back to my bias in shields and whether or not they were disposable! At first I wasn't liking this system, the initial information I had suggested that shields were just meant to be disposable, but now I understand that this might actually be more realistic. I still think there need to be some adjustments to keep both realism and pop-culture like simulation, but we have something close. Shields certainly took damage in battle, especially if you were blocking powerful blows. Some weapons were designed to counter shields, even damage them so they couldn't be raised. The fact that you can't raise your shield after that second dent reflects this reality, as well as the reality that shields were often repaired between fights and battles.

So what can we expect out of shields if we use it for its damage reduction reaction?
The very basic wooden shield has a Hardness of 3 and the basic steel shield has a Hardness of 5. Quality and Material can improve Hardness. The best I could find in the book was a Sturdy Legendary Adamantine Shield with a Hardness of 21. Considering that these are the low and high, how do they stand up to Level 1 and Level 20 play respectively?

1st level monsters have an average damage of about 4 points per attack. I would expect a wooden shield to be able to absorb about one third of the blocked attacks without taking a dent, while the steel shield could block about two thirds of the attacks without taking a dent. However, I suspect that shield hardness does not keep up with average damage as levels increase. I don't have all the data I need to show that, but I do have enough to confidently speculate.

For example, the magical Sturdy shield has the best Hardness for each of the item's levels. I randomly pulled the damage information for 80 monsters, making sure to have each level represented so I could see average damage as levels increased. Comparing the two, average damage eventually outpaces shield hardness, and even minimum damage passes shield hardness in later levels. This is also looking just at Sturdy shields, and doesn't consider weaker ones.

What this means to me is that shields are going to need some tweeks and support. In the low levels shields are about where they should be. You will want to use the Shield Block reaction to block damage less than the shield's hardness in those early levels, which not only keeps you from dying from a thousand cuts but also keeps your shield from being dented. However, the damage output from physical attacks quickly outgrows a shields Hardness, and Hardness never catches up.

Essentially, what I am suggesting, is that shields should be able to keep up with damage in such a way to allow them to block about one-third to two-fifths of damaging physical attacks without taking a dent. They shouldn't match or exceed average damage past the lowest levels, as that would make them far too good. Keeping Hardness at a point where it is just good enough to block a third of attacks but not so good to block half of them might be tricky but it would keep the shield's Shield Block reaction worth using across every level. As it is, it seems to only be worth doing in lower levels where the amount blocked has more impact on survival.

A paladin seems to help a bit with their shield ally, where the hardness increases by 2 and the number of dents increases to 4, but I didn't spot any feats or class abilities that did anything else to improve a shield. As for magical shields they cannot be etched with runes and all magic shields are specific and special. Shields can carry trinkets, however, so there is at least that. The Indestructible Shield is going to be a must, but once more the Hardness is just too low for that level. A mending lattice will help you keep a shield viable by instantly repairing it, which is nice. The Sturdy shields offer higher Hardness, but in my opinion they just don't keep up with the damage being dealt.

To bring shields closer to the reality of their real world construction and use I would suggest allowing them to take three dents and increasing the base Hardness of wood shields to 5 and steel shields to 8. Every other material should also be increased as well, and I might even suggest that quality bonuses to hardness be increased by 1 for shields specifically. Lastly, proficiency in shields could also increase Hardness by +1 for each level of proficiency.

Doing any or all of these could allow shields and the Shield Block reaction to be viable over every level. On top of those there could be class feats that allow all damage to be blocked in exchange for multiple dents, the ability to block certain non-physical attacks, and even a bonus to Hardness against specific types of attacks.

We've talked a lot about the shield's hardness but how much protection can you expect as a bonus to AC and TAC?

Shield | Price | AC Bonus | TAC Bonus | Dex Modifier Cap | Check Penalty | Speed Penalty | Bulk | Traits

Light wooden shield | 5 sp | +1* | +1* | — | –1 | — | L | —
Light steel shield | 10 sp | +1* | +1* | — | –1 | — | L | —
Heavy wooden shield | 10 | sp | +2* | +2* | — | –1 | — | 1 | —
Heavy steel shield | 20 sp | +2* | +2* | — | –1 | — | 1 | —
* Gaining a shield’s circumstance bonus to AC and TAC requires using the Raise a Shield action. A shield’s check penalty applies whenever you’re holding the shield, regardless of whether you have it raised to gain its bonus.

And it should be noted that there doesn't appear to be any way to increase those bonuses and shields cannot be enhanced like regular armor can. This may be a balancing decision but it seems like its keeping something on the table that could further make them attractive as an option. Maybe you should be able to enhance them but the enhancement bonus doesn't stack with any on the armor, allowing shields to have special abilities through their runes. For example, maybe the Sturdy magic ability should be a special shield only rune instead of a special made shield.

But that isn't all shields can do. How did their ability to act as weapons change?

If you attack with a shield, treat it like an attack with an improvised weapon (see page 178). This deals the heavy shield bash damage or light shield bash damage (as appropriate to the shield’s type) listed on Table 6–5: Martial Melee Weapons on page 180. If you want to reliably use your shield to attack, you need to buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to the shield. These work like other weapons, and can even be etched with runes (see page 370).

In PF1, shields were both weapon and armor with some special rules on when and how they can be used as weapons. In the Playtest, they count as improvised weapons but have special weapons that can be attached to the shield. The shield boss and the shield spike can be added to the shield, allowing for a non-improvised method of attack. It seems to me that you are not attacking with the shield but the attached weapon, and while they are both part of a whole the rules keep the two separate. For example you cannot magically enhance the shield itself, but you can enhance the attached weapon.

Lets try to answer those questions I asked in the beginning.

Do they work as intended?
Yes, but the rules seem to be confusing a lot of people. Part of the problem is that people are confusing playtest terms with PF1 mechanics. Part of the problem is in how the rules are written out. Some testing and deep questioning of people not familiar with the rules might find where rewrites are needed. Other than that, the only thing I think is intended but not supported by the rules is the ability to use Shield Block with a broken shield. Once a shield is broken it doesn't provide any benefit and cannot be raised, but from what I've heard and read the developers seem to suggest this shouldn't be the case.

Are they viable at all levels of play?
No. They can't be enhanced to provide any greater bonus. Their hardness does not keep up with the damage as levels rise. They are much more valuable in early levels and quickly become less and less useful as levels increase. If you are using them as a weapon their attack values keep up as well as any weapon, but you don't have much incentive to keep using them past midlevels.

Who benefits from them?
Low level characters that can afford to wield them with one hand. Specific builds with feats and class abilities that support shields benefit more for longer, but as pointed out above the viability of these builds diminishes over time.

Are there any breakpoints with shields?
A breakpoint is a threshold where a single step up in the numbers suddenly breaks the game in a unique way. With shields, I didn't spot any but more testing and number crunching would be needed to find them. I don't think any are going to be found with shields however, as outside of their uses as a weapon all stats fall behind the power curve as levels increase. You don't suddenly have a hardness that will block everything, and you can't really increase their bonus to AC and TAC.

In conclusion, the rules might need to be rewritten to avoid some of the common misunderstandings I've seen pop up in these forums, but by looking deeply at all of the rules around them I do grasp how they are intended to work. I would like to see some hard numbers on how these rules have held up in the playtest, but I suspect that shields need more support in their hardness. I'm also disappointed in their customization options in comparison with what we see in weapon and armor. They don't need any major reworking, but some small changes can really go a long way here.

Actually, in real life wooden shield WERE the disposable part of equipment. Considering that every disposed shield saves one's life, ppl never minded to have an extra one in their luggage :)

I know this was said a while ago but:

Shields were never designed to be disposable on the battlefield. A broken shield would mean a broken arm or worse. There were breakable shields for training or ritual, but the design of the shield throughout history was to have them as durable as possible.

Possibly the most quoted to be disposable was the Viking round shield. However, their design points towards something that could easily handle multiple axe blows and still provide protection. They were laminated layers of wood laid out for max strength, with a metal shield boss and either a hide or metal rim along the edge. Some would even have a facing of rawhide or thin metal for more durability.

My favorite shield, the Greek aspis, had several forms of fabrication but there were some that were laminated wood covered in bronze. The bowl shape added more strength and allowed hoplites to breath in the middle of their battle shoves.

This isn't to say that shields didn't break in the middle of battle, but most shields were able to handle blow after blow without becoming useless. There were certainly types of damage that made them useless, such as a large weapon becoming lodged in them and making them heavier and harder to maneuver.

Shields certainly took damage in battle, but most damage was repairable. Bosses could be hammer out, layers of laminated wood added, rims and facing replaced.

This is all to say that I am okay with the denting but I think shields are too disposable with the current rules.

TL;DR - The idea that shields were disposable is a widespread myth with more evidence against it than for it. Shields were made to be highly durable.

I have another!

Equipment that every day people need but can't afford because their daily wage is far lower than the cost of items they need on a daily basis.

Looking great. I look forward to seeing downtime activities in particular.

It looks like we will be getting new rules for item crafting as well, which is good. I also like that it seems we will have more specific rules on how to handle a wider variety of downtime activities. This could help keep actual down time from happening at the table.

I really like how counterspell is a reaction. I also like seeing a wide variety of reactions other than attack of opportunity, which will make for more dynamic combats. As much as I like AoO, I like seeing other actions that could be just as effective and cool to do in combat.

Exploration and the skills has me really interested in how that mode works.

FYI: They did hint that fighters (and possibly other classes) will be getting additional reactions at later levels, thus allowing them to block and take AoO.

I saw a couple comments that seem assume only 1 reaction forever. This isn't going to be the case, and I suspect we'll see plenty of ways to gain an extra reaction each turn (haste spell?).

The grapple and the trip weapon traits. Neither are helpful or provide something worth using.

The grapple trait, for example, would make it impossible for a whaling industry to function if the whaler needed to make a grapple check against a whale's CMD.

Trip provides no bonus but allows someone to drop the weapon to avoid being tripped themselves.

I am pretty certain we are getting a whole new combat maneuver system, or at least have them handled in a different way. If so, my papercut with those traits should be resolved anyway.

The few publishers I talk to are planning on supporting PF2 if there is a market there. Because nobody knows how popular PF2 is going to be until we get more information from the playtest no one is going to commit this early. It isn't smart to jump in at this point because we simply don't know enough about the system.

Are people cautiously optimistic? Yes. Are they going to change their plans for future products? They can't do that until they know it would be smart to do so.

Titan Mauler - Barbarian
While I don't like how the mechanics work on the current version I love the concept and would love to see the kinks worked out.

Lore Warden - Fighter
I really loved playing my lore warden and enjoy the idea of a fighter that uses his knowledge as much as his weapons to overcome an enemy. I would also love a clearer system on what is learned with a knowledge check.

Phalanx - Fighter
This was my first Pathfinder character and what made me fall in love with the system.

Beastmaster - Ranger
I like how the animal companion options are opened up. I still want to play a halfling ranger with an ape companion that carries the halfling on his back.

Knife Master - Rogue
I love the concept, and would love to see it taken a bit further. Not just more damage with knives, but knife tricks and special attacks.

As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.

This discussion also reminded me that while I liked the backwards compatibility of Pathfinder, I used 3.5 material once in my pathfinder games and that was for a short lived campaign. Pathfinder holds up on its own as its own game, and did so many things well that it didn't need to rely on 3.5 material to be awesome.

The same is going to happen with 2.0. We will have the ability to convert things over to the new system but more than likely we won't have to. It will be a strong and engaging system that won't need to use 1.0 material to hold up.

You also won't have to buy anything new because you never had to buy anything in the first place. 90% of my sources when I'm looking up rules are online and free to use. The same is probably going to happen with 2.0. The only reason I own the books is because I wanted to throw money at Paizo and help keep them in business, not because I wanted access to rules.

I welcome this as an old guard. Bring it on. You may not like change, but I see every stated reason to do it as a good one.

Cuttlefist wrote:

You and this pessimism.

You and this optimism... It's not like you can prove your POV is better or more likely than ours so what is the point of bringing it up? Myself, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised things come out better than disappointed things are worse than I hoped. :P

Reminder to both of you to please keep things civil, on topic, and helpful to the conversation. I know that is tame by comparison to what it could be, but both comments come off as a little heated and neither helps us understand resonance, how it works, and why have the opinions we have. We're all friends here talking about a game.

Agreed and +1.

Also thank you for coffee and tea.

Once you understand how proficiency works with weapons, you understand how it works with armor...

I don't know why this gave me tingles, but I have a feeling my fighter builds are going to be even cooler as a result.

Looks like my pessimism on the complete neutering of skills has been verified.

That is a different topic from this discussion. I disagree, but leave such discussion for a thread specifically for proficiency.

Please, if you can't stay on topic and provide something meaningful to the discussion find another discussion. This isn't specifically aimed at Arssanguinus, but at the community as a whole. Little is going to be accomplished in the playtest if we can't do either.

Correct me if I am wrong but I just want to be clear:

This isn't just for skills but other aspects of the game, including weapon proficiency and even saves?

Also, proficiency is required for some skill feats/unlocks?

It may reduce the total amount of numbers and boxes on your character sheet or resource tracking sheet, but it's no less complex in actual play.

I think you are mistaking complexity for depth, and this system is a great example of removing complexity but adding depth.

The problem the magic item system had before can be referred to as Tracking Complexity. In fact, Pathfinder has had several areas where tracking complexity was a problem. With tracking complexity players are forced to track many different aspects of their character, and in the case of magical items they had to track up to a few dozen separate items. Tracking complexity is often considered poor design, but it isn't always avoidable.

The other type of complexity in game design relates to how easily a system can be understood or comprehended. If players can't understand how to play the game, or can't understand how each part of the game works with the whole, then you have a bad type of complexity in the game. In this case, resonance is easy to understand and I doubt we are talking about that form of complexity.

One thing resonance is attempting to do is reduce the levels of tracking complexity in the magic item system while avoiding creating complexity with the system as a whole.

I understand your point that while we are no longer tracking a dozen x/day items we have to put more consideration into which items we will use. That extra consideration into your options isn't the same as tracking complexity. That consideration could create confusion on how the game works as a whole, but only if the items themselves are poorly designed and overly complex themselves.

If the items are clearly designed and easy to understand, than what is being added with resonance isn't complexity but depth. Depth is providing meaningful, understandable, and balanced options to game play. Now that items have to compete for the same resource the players have to consider the merits of each one. That is a good thing. As long as the players can understand the system (and they should, its easy to explain) and the items (jury is out on that until we see items) they are provided incentive to be smart with their choices.

It also gives an incentive to game designers to make those items cool, engaging, easy to use, and worth the investment.

So while I wouldn't say your are totally wrong in your assessment, I think the disconnect here is actually with vocabulary usage.

This system has more depth, not complexity.

All that said, more depth isn't always a good thing, but until I can play with magic items directly I won't know if we have good or bad depth with resonance.

To add to the Fumble mechanic aspect of Resonance:

It's important to know that if the check is indeed a flat roll (1d20) against DC 10 + 1 per previous attempt, then your first chance has a 0% chance at a fumble, with a 5% chance going up with each attempt after that. While it does get harder to succeed, you should have plenty of opportunities to attempt the check. Also a fumble only cuts you off from your ability to use magic items. That doesn't mean that other PCs are cut off from trying themselves.

Also, there are more than likely going ways to gain a bonus to your attempts through traits, feats, class options, heritage traits, items, and/or spells. Each +1 bonus will give you one more fumble free round to try the check.

This makes me realize that the check can't possibly be tied to a skill like Use Magic Device because such a skill at high enough proficiency and ranks would make Resonance a useless mechanic. This also makes me think we are going to see attempts to keep bonuses to the roll from getting higher than +4.

I would also put money down on a method of recharging Resonance eventually making its way into the game.

But "fumbles" in this case isn't as severe as the word implies. The wand isn't going to explode. The potion isn't going to poison you. They are just going to fail to benefit you for the rest of the day.

The only thing that I haven't liked about the shield reveals is that the rules make them a bit more disposable.

While shields were certainly destroyed in battle, they were designed to take a ton of punishment before they were useless. In my amateur study on the matter, I found that no one, not the vikings nor anyone else, made shields that broke on purpose for real combat situations. That myth as far as I can tell comes from pop culture and misunderstandings on how shields were made. Shields were meant to handle nearly everything an enemy could throw at you. It took repeated powerful attacks to destroy a shield.

Read the book I wrote on shields in Pathfinder for more specific information. Link is in the profile.

But I like the idea of using a shield to block attacks and reduce damage. I do no like the idea of my shield being destroyed in the process. I'll need to see the full rules to know what is going on, but if shields are fully disposable I'm going to be sternly against it and champion other options. If I can easily repair the shield in my downtime between adventuring days I'll probably tolerate more disposable shields.

... but rings wouldn't list ring because you have plenty of places to wear those.

"How are you using an effect that is only found on rings? You clearly aren't wearing any on your hands."

*suggestive eyebrow raise and smirk*

Okay, so I keep reading a great amount on resonance and I'm seeing enough to have me believe that people are not considering all of the information given to us. Fair enough if you haven't been able to read all the blogs and forum posts, as well as listen to all the podcasts and keep up with social media. So here is everything En World has compiled on magic items , with a little editorial work on my end.

We keep focusing narrowly on resonance but lets look at magic items as a whole first.

27) Are witches just wizards with a liberal arts degree?

CalebTGordan wrote:

And to add to this: We still haven't read the full rules, maybe wait to read them before fully condemning or praising them?

You know this is the internet right? Reasonable responses aren't what goes on in these parts! ;)

That may be true, but someone has to be a voice of reason, especially if they want to be taken seriously by people who matter.

Sarcasm aside, I've been on the receiving end of harsh and unreasonable internet criticism and it sucks. If you have any interest in being a game designer publishers take seriously don't go that route in your commentary on their work.

Cross-posting from Pathfinder Playtest parts 3 and 4 with the Glass Cannon Podcast thread.

As a game designer, resonance opens way more space for me to play with than the elements it is replacing.

By removing most of the x/day special properties on magic items and replacing it with resonance and investing, I can do so many cool things with magic items. I can create sets that when used together need less investment. Intelligent items and artifacts can have their own resonance pools. I have have items with special properties that get way better when you use more than one point of resonance. I can have items that can be used without investment but do more cool things with it.

It also solves the issue of people saving items for "when we really need them." Now the issue isn't with certain items, and they can be used as freely as players want. Single use items like potions and scrolls of course still have that problem, but that flame ray from a flame tongue sword allows my fighter to have more cool tricks up his sleeve. In fact, this may be one way to bridge the cap between martials and spellcaster, especially if there are feats martials can use to gain more resonance that won't be as attractive to spellcasters.

Does it solve wand spamming? Judging by one dev comment it probably only lessons the issue, but that problem will need a couple other solutions to really be fixed. Healing spells should be using 2d4, not 1d8, per level. There need to be more meaningful ways to make players feel safe to continue without stopping to take a break or doing something to disrupt the narrative of the game.

But that isn't the only problem resonance is aiming to provide a solution to. If you have been paying attention to all the changes Paizo want to do, you'll also know they want to make PCs less reliant on what is often called "the big six". Weapon, armor, cloak of resistance, stat boosting item, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor. Now items can provide basic bonuses for investment but still have cool abilities that require resonance.

So, unless I end up reading the rules directly and hating them, I remain cautiously optimistic and look forward to playing around with it as a player and as a game designer.

And to add to this: We still haven't read the full rules, maybe wait to read them before fully condemning or praising them?

As a game designer, resonance opens way more space for me to play with than the elements it is replacing.

By removing most of the x/day special properties on magic items and replacing it with resonance and investing, I can do so many cool things with magic items. I can create sets that when used together need less investment. Intelligent items and artifacts can have their own resonance pools. I have have items with special properties that get way better when you use more than one point of resonance. I can have items that can be used without investment but do more cool things with it.

It also solves the issue of people saving items for "when we really need them." Now the issue isn't with certain items, and they can be used as freely as players want. Single use items like potions and scrolls of course still have that problem, but that flame ray from a flame tongue sword allows my fighter to have more cool tricks up his sleeve. In fact, this may be one way to bridge the cap between martials and spellcaster, especially if there are feats martials can use to gain more resonance that won't be as attractive to spellcasters.

Does it solve wand spamming? Judging by one dev comment it probably only lessons the issue, but that problem will need a couple other solutions to really be fixed. Healing spells should be using 2d4, not 1d8, per level. There need to be more meaningful ways to make players feel safe to continue without stopping to take a break or doing something to disrupt the narrative of the game.

But that isn't the only problem resonance is aiming to provide a solution to. If you have been paying attention to all the changes Paizo want to do, you'll also know they want to make PCs less reliant on what is often called "the big six". Weapon, armor, cloak of resistance, stat boosting item, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor. Now items can provide basic bonuses for investment but still have cool abilities that require resonance.

So, unless I end up reading the rules directly and hating them, I love the concept and look forward to playing around with it as a player and as a game designer.

Alignment isn't without its uses and merits, but as a tool for informing PCs on what their behavior should and should be it falls flat and lacks nuance. It has more potential for contention than other aspects of the game. It should be kept for creatures, items, and spells that need alignment related auras. It should be used when it helps to tell engaging stories.

I just don't see a reason to keep it tied to players and NPCs anymore. It doesn't even need to be replaced, but the merits of keeping it as is no longer outweigh the drawbacks and issues.

I totally missed this thread when I created my own papercut discussion.

But again: Bag of Holding Type III needs to cost 7,500 gp and not 7,400 gp.

The alignment system has been a part of the hobby for a long time, and has seen little change from the Good-Evil and Chaos-Lawful axis in many decades. It is so well known that it spawns countless memes, debates, and discussion even outside of the hobby. It is, however, outdated and this play test offers an opportunity to try something different.

While I understand Eric Mona's sentiment that removing something from the game has the danger of pissing off a fandom, we should still use this opportunity to at least try to innovate in this area of the game. If it doesn't work, if it isn't liked, there is still an opportunity to change it back to the way it was before. To keep alignment as it is will be missing an opportunity to do something Mr. Mona and others have said they want to do: facilitate storytelling in inclusive and accessible ways.

Keeping the concepts of good, evil, law, and chaos in the game is still possible without the current alignment system. After all, anything that replaces the current system will have to allow for planes of existence and creatures that are the absolute representations of those concepts. Devils should always be lawful and evil, for example. Spells and items should totally be able to carry auras that tie them to those concepts as well. Those auras help tell a story about the world, and to remove those elements removes something fundamental about fantasy games.

However, alignment for PCs, most NPCs, and most monsters is not nearly as helpful or inclusive as it could be. To start, most games simply ignore PC alignment until it is needed because of a class, spell, or effect. While alignment has the potential of facilitating character development, it is far too broad and ambiguous to inform interesting action. Good generally means that I have other people's interests at heart, but it doesn't actively encourage me to do specific good actions. There is little to nothing there encouraging the player could play directly with or against their alignment, and GMs don't have something specific they can directly challenge unless the player is a paladin.

Alignment as is also doesn't provide as much depth to the game as a similar system could. By limiting the trait to five terms it also limits creative play, and in some cases differences of opinion on what they mean can make them exclusive. While the simplicity of the system is good, it is ultimately shallow in what it provides players. It assumes that all Lawful Good characters are going to share the same opinions on what is both lawful and good, when in reality that will not be the case. As is, it doesn't encourage those two characters to explore those differences in any meaningful way. It also doesn't encourage either to have a difference from the other that can be played with.

Instead, I suggest we remove alignment from player characters and other elements where they are not needed for an aura or direct creature type. Certain classes can still inherit an aura, but other than that the PCs wouldn't have an alignment. What they could have is something more personalized to the character, such a statement of belief or morality, that can be used to inform their action, to be played against in interesting ways, and to be challenged. It could also be something given to NPCs that PCs may have methods of discovery for (sense motive? Detect Morality?)

The system could also have something built into it to encourage active play with the statements or aspects. Something that the GM could use as a guide when rewarding players for role play.

Here are two possible ideas:

Morality
Pick two adjectives that describe your character's moral character. Examples include but are not limited to chaste, honest, greedy, murderous, lustful, reserved, honorable, and kind.

Belief
Taken directly from Mouseguard/Burning Wheel, belief is a statement of belief that informs the character's morality and actions. "It's not what you fight against, but what you fight for that matter."

Both of these could have a reward system attached to them. Playing with, or even against, either could reward the player bonus experience points, or maybe even a bonus to a check. Morality could be something easily integrated into detection spells or the Sense Motive check. Belief would be trickier to put into monsters or NPCs, but it also encourages more thought into who the character is and what they live and die for.

No matter what is used in place of alignment, we need something with more depth and allows more inclusion. Something that has less potential for contention at the table and in discussion. This is a perfect opportunity to experiment and see what could be done. The perfect chance to move away from an old outdated system that has outlived its usefulness. We don't need to remove the elements of alignment completely from the game, but we should at least rethink how they are used and find ways to expand our tools to tell meaningful moral tales.

Now, I understand that this might be coming in too late. That to change how alignment is used would require far too much work. If so, oh well, but I couldn't let this play test pass without adding my voice and suggestions to this issue.

CalebTGordan wrote:

Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

I can't lie, I was not actually expecting anything to happen with this. Thank you for the little things!

Steelfiredragon wrote:

my definition f justice is not the same as law....

In which case, playing Lawful Good should be about changing the law, via legitimate procedures, until it does match your definition of justice, no ?

Unfortunately the process to do that isn't always allowed by Pathfinder games. Lobbying, maybe even running for office, is a bit time consuming. Better to just violently overthrow the current establishment and set up your own.

Sometimes there are little things that just don't get changed between editions that probably should have been given an editorial or proof-reading pass. Sometimes something works well but isn't worded as clearly as it could be. Sometimes there is just something small that bugs you. These are paper cuts. Things that won't have a major impact if changed in the next edition, but also wouldn't have an impact if kept the same.

My paper cut has to do with the bag of holding, specifically the cost of the Type III bag. All other bags of holding use multiples of 2,500 in their cost, but the Type III is worth 7,400 gp. This started with 3.0, and as best as I can tell it was carried over by copy/paste through other editions, including Pathfinder. Changing it to 7,500 gp would put it in line with the other bag types.

(As a note, bags of holding need to be reexamined to make them easier to scale up and down but that's more a personal desire than a paper cut.)

Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

See, nothing that has any real impact on the game as a whole but might still be worth including, changing, or removing.

What is your paper cut?

...if a class is going to have ethical and moral requirements, which I strongly favour, not tying them to an alignment seems to be deliberately avoiding the tool we have for implementing such requirements.

See my post above, but we need a better tool. The alignment system is far more restrictive and contentious than it is helpful and inclusive.

I agree. In fact, I would champion alignment being removed from PCs entirely.

PC alignment is nearly always ignored until its a problem, or until it can be used against the PC. It is so broad in meaning it creates more arguments than any other aspect of the game. It adds complexity to the game that isn't needed and does very little for depth of play. It constantly slows down play when tied closely to a class.

So remove it from PCs entirely. Instead lets get something that has more meaning to individuals. I love Mouseguard/Burning Wheel's Instinct and Belief traits. They provide something that the players can use to judge their actions against, and gives the GM something to directly challenge. We could replace it with an allegiance trait, which would make way more sense for a paladin than alignment seeing as how the word paladin refers to a knight loyal to the palace directly.

If we need a simple two-word trait lets allow players to pick two adjectives and call them Morality. Now we can have honest greedy PCs or chaste murderous PCs.

We could remove the alignment system at it currently is entirely without major effect. Lets still have Good, Evil, Chaotic, and Lawful monsters, spells, items, and other elements that give off auras. That much is helpful, but we don't need those types attached to everything.

And yes, removing alignment restrictions from classes makes them more inclusive and removes unneeded complexity from them. I love the warpriest more than the paladin simply because it isn't put into the cage of Lawful Good.

I could go on forever about this. TL;DR - Alignment really needs to go the way of the dinosaur. We need something new that addresses that space in a better way.

Sorry to see you go and happy to see what comes next. Congrats and good luck!

CalebTGordan wrote:

Like previous years, I feel disapointed in the convention store. As much as I would hate to risk going over budget, I would love to have more reason to spend time there.

What would you suggest to improve that?

There were already some good suggestions given so I'll try not to repeat them. The whole space felt very empty and sparse, and while I noticed a few more vendors it still felt like everything was too focused on printed Pathfinder material. My first PaizoCon had a couple non-Pathfinder specific people set up in the store area, and having something like that would be great.

I know that Lone Wolf wasn't able to come this year because the team member that would have set that up left them. Hopefully next year they can set up something in the store to show off not just Hero Lab but Realm Works and Card Vault. It would also be awesome to see people show off other gaming aid products, like gaming tables and furniture, hand made dice towers, and artisan dice. Having a small artists corner where artists could sell prints or their services would also be nice.

I know shirts and similar apparel is a pain to deal with, but maybe instead of having racks set up for people to go through you can display the offered shirts, coats, and hoodies behind a counter and have people request their size.

I totally understand how difficult something like this would be to set up and run. From what I understand you have only a couple people doing most of the work in setting up and managing the store, and you are running all the sales though your own system. I don't have a solution on how to do more while working with the same system and resources, but hopefully it could be done.

You talk to him and ask him to stop.

When he does it again you talk to him and ask him to stop or else, with the or else being he will be kicked out.

When he does it a third time you talk to him and then kick him out. Be civil and explain that clearly your game isn't the game for him. That his expectations and play style are counter to yours and that he needs to go elsewhere for games. If he takes it well enough, let him know you may be willing to let him play with you in a future game, but probably not for a while. If he deals with it poorly, and gets angry, don't say anything about future games. If he yells, calls you names, and issues threats of violence (or uses violence) be sure to inform him that he will not be playing with you at all in any future games and that you will be sure let other people in your area know about his game etiquette.

There was certainly a noticable reaction at the banquette when this was announced.

The possibilities are making me giggle with glee. Space Goblins in junk ships. Demons with cybernetics. Infernal agents promising homesteads on far off planets. Giant flying space hamsters.

So amazing.

In case it helps people, my wife felt very safe, welcome, and accepted at PaizoCon both times she went with me. She is not a gamer, though she does know how to play, and was worried before our first trip together that she would feel unsafe without me by her side. She suffers from no small amount of anxiety in unfamiliar areas and around unfamiliar people.

She felt so welcome at PaizoCon that she had no anxiety attacks, felt safe enough to explore without me, and even made new friends. She also loved how she felt like she could approach any of the Paizo staff when she had a question or concern.

She also loved the fact that she discovered activities unrelated to gaming that aligned with a few of her other interests.

My advice (and I need to take it too,):

If you aren't sure you want to submit and run an event, do it. It is fun and you get to meet new people.

Plan ahead and know your limits. I did two events last year and I should have only done one. One event was a big mess because I had to do a large amount of last minute planning. The other suffered slightly from a lack of polish because I had split my time up. On the other hand, the year I ran one event I was able to put together an amazing game with great visual props, custom rules, and painted miniatures I gave to the players.

Have fun. Don't let yourself get stressed out over the game.

Yeah, 6 people is a good upper limit.

The gazebo launches into space, traveling the void between stars. The creatures inside were supposed to bring their own life support.

Hey everyone, a book I co-wrote was recently published. The Brass Drake is somewhat of a proof of concept for a larger piece down the line for a certain magical market for the fey. I may also end up needing help and feedback on certain details.

I can't give much more away now, but if this market line does well, and if people leave helpful reviews, it will make this future, related to this thread, book be even better.

Also, I believe that because things posted here on the forums are technically owned by Paizo I wouldn't be able to use them in any future books? I'll look into that, but if possible I will try to pull some of the best ideas (or people) from this thread into the project when it gets more serious.

This brings us to questions that only Owen and other Paizo employees can answer. I am sure Neil or other people who have written for Paizo could also answer most of these.

What expectations does Paizo have of contestants, winners, and freelancers? Are those expectations different from each other?

Are those writing for Paizo able to get feedback before a deadline, and if so what kind of feedback are they allowed? Could I go to my regular gaming group and playtest something before I turn it in? Could I ask the developer I am working with to give some feedback if I am unsure about something I am working on?

What are Paizo's feelings about contestants going to other people for coaching, feedback, or advice?

I was thinking last night about all this and I think maybe we should be diving deeper into this issue of what is appropriate and what isn't when it comes to getting help on your submission.

There are ways of workshopping that I believe we should attempt to discourage from this contest, and we actually have much more of an ability to do so. While we cannot discourage workshopping entirely we can shape it into something much more appropriate and helpful to everyone. This is because it is pretty clear that that the people doing the coaching in workshops all run in similar circles and are loosely connected to each other.

What do I believe needs to be discouraged?

• Going into a large group like Freelance Forge, a company's group chat, or a private social media group and posting a link to the unfinished submission without consideration of who might see it or who might comment on it. You are actually taking a big risk. If you spread your submission out in such a way there is a possibility that a judge will see it. You could also create voting bias, and I am very much against actively doing that. Lastly, if you don't know who is going to look at your piece you don't know if you can trust them. Not only could their advice end up hurting your submission (sabotage at worst, unintentional mistake at best) but they could also put you in a position of toeing the line of a DQ.

• Showing your coaches an unfinished piece. My drama teacher in highschool had a saying: "Never show an idiot an unfinished piece of work." While your coaches shouldn't be idiots, if a submission is unfinished they will point out something you intend on working on or changing in the future. You also waste their time, as they will be spending it commenting on something you are already aware of. The exception to this could be the map, but that is going to depend on how you are controlling workshop and who your coaches are.

• Expecting people to do the work for you. It is okay to not know how to do something, but you shouldn't expect your coach's knowledge to make up for that. Ask them where to find the information you need and then go to the primary source. A coach should be there to get a feel for how people will react to your submission, not to fill in the template for you. They should be there to help you make minor adjustments, and not to walk you through the whole process. There are enough guides, blogs, and forum posts to teach people how to build items, monsters, and encounters, you shouldn't rely on your coach to pass that knowledge onto you.

• Allowing other people to write or work for you. This is against the contest rules. Like I pointed out above, limit your coach's ability to just comments. Do not allow anyone to have the ability to directly edit your submission.

• Encouraging people to go in and clarify something for your while voting is ongoing. This is wrong, and I very much think that this should be something that could get people disqualified if they are caught doing it. In the future I am going to encourage all of my coaches to refrain on commenting on my item. If there was a change to the rules to address workshopping, I would hope it would discourage such clarifications.
  

I have a question for those who are against workshopping: Assuming that we cannot eliminate workshopping competely, in what ways can we shape the nature of it to benefit the contest and make it more acceptable to a wider range of voters? Did I miss anything above in my own suggestion?

I think there should be a discussion on effective workshopping for the contest and what ineffective workshopping could be. So far the arguments have been about for or against workshopping, but there hasn't really been much of a detailed talk about what people are doing, how the actions taken, and how the different parts of workshopping effect the submissions.

Frank did a pretty good job about how to be part of a workshop but I would love to see more people talk about their processess and direct experiences. It is possible that there is a right and a wrong way to do this, and that those arguing on either side are coming from a narrow point of view and are making incorrect assumptions about process.

My personal process involved controlling the process as much as I could. I learned about workshopping as I went along in the contest and refined my process with each step, but I feel I have found a way to do workshopping that helps me as a writer and a contestant without compromising the legitmacy of my submission or risking my own voice being taken from the piece.

• Keep the number of people looking at your piece down to a minimum. I was going to be workshopping with only three or four people if I had moved on to the encounter round, each one picked because I knew I could trust them, and because I knew they had knowledge and insights I could benefit from.
  
• Share the piece privately and in a way so that only you can directly edit it. I used Google Docs and when I shared the piece with people and I made sure they only had permission to comment on it and not do anything else. This meant that if a change was needed, I did it myself and did it with my voice. It also meant that I was following the rules of the contest and that no one else had done work for me.
  
• Don't share it with everyone all at once. I wouldn't share it with the whole group of people at one time. Share it with one or two people first and then bring in the rest. This keeps the amount of commentary down to a manageable amount, and if someone has an area of specialization (such as templates or rules language,) you can better focus them onto those areas.
  
• Don't feel like you have to apply all of the comments, but keep in mind that your piece has to stand up on its own without your defence or clarifications. I certainly should have listened to people on a couple points when it came to my monster, but I also held my ground on a couple details that ended up working out for me. The balance is found in asking yourself about how well things stand up on their own. If everyone is pointing out a trouble area, you need to give it attention. If one person is expressing their personal tastes, you could probably leave it alone.
  
• Cut people off from the document once you have submitted your piece. This removes the conversations you had with them and prevents them from going back to find your own clarificaitons. It also keeps them from directly quoting you in public, which could get you DQed.
  
• Don't clarify your own piece to the people workshopping it unless you need advice on a process. I was guilty of clarifying, but in a couple instances I should not have said anything. If people didn't get it I needed to make revisions instead of clarifying. The submission has to stand up without your commentary, so practicing retraint in workshopping will help you later.
  

I think this process should be a good one for contest level workshopping. I am sure I missed some part of my own process but I did get the important parts.

I have to echo the sentiments of the other people here. When I look at this map I do not see a sewer. I see a group of buildings built above the water in a swamp or lake. I can forgive the clean look of the water, walkways, and areas, as you used a program with its own textures and tiles instead of using your own. You probably didn't have the brownish green water you needed, or the grunge associated with sewers.

Some of the rooms do not seem to have a way for people to get in and out of them, and I am not entirely sure about the purpose of some of the areas.

While I do see indications that you thought your map through, a bit more research into sewers would have done some good. Sewers are drains, and what we see here doesn't show this. Think of sewers as a series of pipes, lines, and underground rivers. Pipes from buildings lead to larger lines that Small characters could probably crawl through. These lead to main lines that flow away from neighborhoods, and are what we typically see people walking through. Everything grows larger with the needs of the buildings, neighborhoods, and city depending on the city and the neighborhood's needs. In New York, for example, large buildings have massive drain pipes with big pumps to push the waste water into the sewers, which lead to great drainage systems that can handle all the buildings feeding into it. Lastly, everything leads out to river or ocean, or at least in that direction if it is going to a treatment center. A great sewer map plays with this pattern and system, and should have indications of what type of city or neighborhood it is under.

Sewers are also not always filled with water, with the winter or spring being the wettest. I am assuming it is sometime in spring with all the water in your map.

Overall, you have a good map, but I wouldn't call it superstar. More research would have helped you (Paizo has a few sewer maps that could have helped in figuring out some of the details) and there isn't much there that indicates what is going on in it. It could be used in multiple encounters, but I see very little opportunity to use obstacles typical in a sewer. Good work, keep at it, and I hope you do end up being able to submit a map to RPGSS some day.

Charlie Bell wrote:

Archives of Nethys lists the page numbers as well.

That's true, but they're not entirely accurate all the time.

Which goes along with the advice I was going to give:

Confirming in a primary source should be your first priority in research. Using a secondary source should be next as long as they properly and completely cite the primary source. Never use sources that don't cite their source or leave out important information in their citation.

Raven, I know you put a winking smiley in your post, possibly to indicate you meant to be sarcastic, but your comment is pretty insulting to both Jeff and Garrett. An apology is in order, and you most certainly should consider showing a bit more restraint in the future.

I know for a fact who was involved in workshopping this monster, and I know the comments thus far have not been influenced by that workshopping. To suggest otherwise is speculation at best and mudslinging at worst.

If I lose votes over this then so be it. Jeff is a good man and fellow contestant, and Garrett has been an excellent commentator. Both deserve a bit more respect.

I am a stable boy who collects the fees for stabling horses. During the slow times of my job I work on freelance scribe work or on assignments given to me at scribe school.

Good luck everyone!