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!

Stream announced they are cleaning up dents. Your shield can't take more than one dent per hit. Period. Rule will read if the hit takes more than hardness you take the extra and it takes one dent. All stop.

I was coming to say just that.

This is how I thought they were supposed to work, but because there was little wonky language I understood why we needed a clarification.

Now we need ways to raise hardness with damage values as levels increase to make Shield Block a worthwhile reaction beyond low levels.

It's curious that the character sheets do that, and I can see where there is some confusion there. I have a dozen theories how that happened or why they chose to do that but won't speculate here.

I'll just add again that there needs to be some cleaning up of the language around this mechanic and a unification of RAI and RAW everywhere it shows up.

One more thing: when using both armor and a shield, you apply the lower of the two proficiency levels. So if you're expert in your armor, but trained in shield, you'll only break even if you raise a light shield. Essentially, only classes that increase both armor and shield proficiency (or don't increase either) will gain even the miniscule AC benefit.

Thank you, I had missed that. It sets them back even more, and further hurts their ability to really shine.

Good to know.

To repeat what I've said above, I don't seem them being broken and the actions you can take with them work. Shields are certainly a weak option and the cool thing you are supposed to be able to do with them just doesn't keep up with the rest of the game. I don't seem them needing any big changes in the rules, just clarifications. Its the stats that need some examination.

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 just got mine. Thank you for the update and keeping us informed on the situation.

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.

Because I'm curious and liked Mona's archetype survey, here is one of my own. I'm not a part of Paizo at all so take this as purely a fun survey/discussion.

What five spells from outside of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook would you love to see sooner rather than later?

I can even start!

Possibly because I love playing the witch, but my top five are:

• Lipstich While not always the best choice in a combat, I love the flavor and utility of this spell. It is not only horrifying, but can actually prevent some foes from being effective if used correctly.

• Ill Omen Force a foe to roll twice and take the lowest? Heck yes. With PF1's critical hit system this almost guaranteed that the target wouldn't get one, and it really helped to set up some save-or-suck abilities and spells when I played a witch.

• Blistering Invective This not only allows you to make an Intimidate check against multiple targets, but has the potential to set them on fire!

• Limp Lash This needed a bit of work to clarify and balance out but even after all that I enjoyed using it a few times on our enemies.

• Call The Void My spellcasters always seemed to end up right next to the enemy, and this spell helped me make sure they regretted getting so close.
  

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.

I would certainly enjoy a clearer guide on how to create various elements as well. Homebrew content is a passion of mine.

Maybe they aren't sticking to a strict Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule for the preview blogs. I was hoping they would be.

Should we be expecting preview blogs on a regular basis on set days?

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.

If you want suggestions: please consider a less than binary result system. Mostly now its 'you succeed or fail' and that's it.

That's where fumbles and critical successes are coming in. Now any roll could potentially have a result for either, but not all of them do. I think it was Jason that said that if something noted a critical success of a failure than it had one. If it doesn't note one then they are just regular successes and failures.

Most skills in 1e have something like this already with "fail by 5" results. In this case its "fail by 10" results with some "succeed by 10" results also in there.

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.

Adding my voice to this. Exotic weapons need something a little more to make me feel like they are worth using.

My problem is how much it’s going to shackle seeing anything used, especially the unique but less potent stuff that no one is going to use up their precious point pool on.

I can see that as a possibility but I think it will be an unlikely one. It looks like the system is going to have more interesting items but players are going to be relying on fewer items overall.

If we are going to see the average number of items PCs use drop, then there is a higher chance of each item seeing use.

I do not know if they expect us to use fewer magic items because of resonance or because of other elements, but I look forward to seeing the whole of the things so I can understand it better.

How are people not grokking this?

Not to defend their position but:

Some people learn by reading and theory. Some people learn by application. It is possible they will get it once they see it directly in practice.

Or not, and they will hold onto their bias with an iron grasp.

I think we should expect it to be as robust as the Ultimate Campaign systems. It isn't going to look the same (at least I hope it doesn't) but we should expect to be able to do the same types of activities.

That is, of course, speculation.

No, the way skills and attacks work is that you always add your character level and ability mod to them. Then there are 5 levels of proficiency that give -1, +0, +1, +2, and +3. You select proficiency increases every few levels.

Now that you lay it out I remember reading it in more words somewhere. EDIT: I do not have a source, and echo a request for one to confirm your statement.

Still, my question stands. What can we expect for different levels of proficiency if it happens to use a skill like Use Magic Device?

If it doesn't use a skill, but abilities/feats/traits add a bonus to the roll, what can we expect with +1 to +4 modifiers?

Resonance is your UMD pool. There won't be a UMD skill, especially since every single character automatically increases every single skill at every single level.

Do you have a source on that? My sources do not have anyone confirming UMD from being cut from the skill list.

Also, I'm unclear on what you mean about increasing every skill. Comments still point to there being skill ranks that must be invested into a skill, but that the system is going to have less of a difference between different characters. There are still going to be varying bonuses as far as I can tell.

Sorry for the double posting but I want to ask:

What could we expect to see if the check was modified? What would each +1 bonus give us?

They were testing only the checks made after you run out of Resonance, which aren't at all modified by level or Charisma. It's just a flat 1d20 roll against a DC of 10, +1 per previous check.

Do we know for a fact that this is how it will be done? What if the check is based on Use Magic Device and we should expect a modifier/penalty?

I highly doubt the final result will end up with a flat 1d20 result.

Edit: Checked on this myself and yes so far the only information we have says: "The check after you resonance is done appears to be a "flat check", which means its a d20 with no modifiers."

But I want to point out that it says "appears" which isn't a confirmation.

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*

Arssanguinus wrote:

Except no one is going to want to spend their resonance points. Happens every time there is a limited pool.

Exactly. Under the system as we know it, people will save their resonance for healing potions and nothing else!

Thus I would strongly urge the devs to exclude potions and scrolls from costing resonance.

I'm making this point once more not because I'm picking on you but because I want to hammer it home to the community at large.

0 Resonance does not mean you can't use items.

It means you start making a check to see if you can use the item. If remember correctly only a fumble result means you can't use non-invested magic items for the rest of the day. (Paizo Person correct me please.)

Except no one is going to want to spend their resonance points. Happens every time there is a limited pool.

YMMV but in my experience that hasn't been the case. New players have been reluctant but that had more to do with lack of experience and the more complicated nature of classes that rely on point pools. This is going to be for every character and a standard from the start, meaning its something everyone will learn how to do and be encouraged to use.

You may also be assuming 0 resonance means you can't use magic items anymore, which also isn't the case. At 0 resonance you start making checks with increasing difficulty. This means people aren't punished for depleting their resource and allows more breathing room in their use.

I just realized that this could mean that we can have characters with low resonance but better ability to make the check to continue using items.

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.

I'm sure it's already been considered, and they decided to keep it. I also think it will upset too many people.

The best option at this point, instead of railing against it, is to try to make it better.

That would also have the bonus effect of having a decrease in "should this paladin fall" threads.

I am sure you are right. I'm really hoping though that we can see a change this time around, even if it a small one.

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!