My players are gaining individual levels, because I'm running a sandbox instead of DD... character creation took about 8 hours in total, and each level-up has taken up about 4 hours. Which means by 3rd level we'd wasted an entire month's worth of playtime on the "age of accounting".
I would like to say there was some particular element which slowed everyone down, but there wasn't. The book playtest rulebook is simply unusable throughout. All three of my players have complained about how user-friendly the book isn't; and that is with a physical book, up-to-date printed errata, and simultaneous access to multiple mobile devices with copies of the PDFs.
Exploration Mode feels out-of-place, like a subsystem they pulled from an entirely different game-design document and just ploped into the PF2 playtest with minimal revision to tie into the Three-Action Economy. That, or it was written hastily (like a paper due the next day), and never properly edited.
Regardless, I've found I've no use for the Exploration Mode Rules. Despite running an actual sandbox campaign with hexcrawling elements. I've ended up ignoring them almost entirely because in every instance they could have come up it would have slowed down the game, encouraged irrational behaviour (to avoid fatigue), or prevented reasonable activities (because of fatigue).
I think there are more than enough feat slots to allow for plenty of customization. We really don't need more feats... we need better ones instead.
I would prefer for feats to be designed to scale as opposed to being designed to be taken in chains. Instead of taking three or four class feats to unlock all of your multiclass spellslots, you should only be taking one. The same goes for a combat style. They're the biggest reason customization bottlenecks, as you can only invest in one chain per feat-silo, and the class feats are far-and-away the best silo. If you cannot come up with at least a dozen feats for a given class or archetype without resorting to a feat-chain, it doesn't deserve to exist. Nor would I count any of the 'pick-a-thing-from-this-other-list' feats either, but that's just being picky because they're an uncreative design.
Finally, fill out the remainder of the (now much shorter) list with feats that let a player actually do something; because negligable static benefits in specific circumstances make terrible feats.
I did write an Armor as Damage Resistance rule, using my estimates of how underpowered a given suit of armor was to the best possible armor in the game.
At this point I'd like to see "Touch Armor Class" replaced by simply using an enemy's Reflex DC instead. We don't need two different defenses that do functionally the same thing (represent your ability to dodge).
I'd also love so see Heavy Armor and Shields allow a character to apply their Strength instead of Dexterity to AC. Because physically blocking an attack requires you be strong enough to brace for the impact.
I'm also amongst those who're unhappy with the current rules for armor and shields. The fact that the best possible "Armor Class" is acquired by having a little actual "armor" as possible is unreasonable.
I would like to see armor and shields made significantly better.
I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.
Or we're offended by disregarding long established traditions. There is no reason to try putting words in our mouths to try to belittle our stance.
There were no long-standing traditions to disregard. Variant paladins are nothing new, they've existed in almost every version of D&D. Back when I started playing, Paladins were just better fighters with higher prerequisites (Rangers too); famously used as GMPCs by the uncreative to keep their party's in line. The reason those editions mechanically rewarded players for being Good (and preferably Lawful) was simple. The most practical alignment for an adventurer is Chaotic Evil, because we're glorified tomb-robbers. Not Stealing and Killing means not gaining experience points. Parties with a Paladin or Ranger needed the extra boost to compete with parties that could otherwise steal from and murder people for money and power. The Paladin's legacy died in 3rd edition, you're just a few decades late to the funeral.
You're in a settlement and you want to hit up the local wizard's guild and get a copy of magic missile. How much is that service? We know how much the scribing costs, but the access fee of borrowing an NPCs spellbook or time (since NPCs can just teach you verbally these days, I believe).
You'd be performing the Learn An Arcane Spell activity, so you'd use those rules (see page 146). Which is to say the check takes 1 hour, and it costs 2 gp to learn Magic Missile from a tutor or borrowed grimoire (or just 1 gp if you critically succeed). It also costs you 1 gp if you Critically fail... Alternatively you can buy a Scroll for 3 gp (or make one for an initial investment of 25 sp (2.5 gp), or less*
Assuming you have Scribe Scroll, you can gain access to a spell (for scribing purposes only) by keeping a formula book with the 'formula' for that scroll. The formula for a scroll of magic missile costs 10 sp for example. Meaning even an Alchemist or Fighter can scribe scrolls per RAW.
Obvious Rules Abuse*:
All spellcasters explicitly have "access" to every common spell on their list; it is a requirement for adding those spells to your spellbook or spells known. Combined with the phrasing of Scribe Scroll and the rules for Crafting it means...
...a Wizard can scribe a magic missile scroll even if he hasn't yet added magic missile to his spell book, and then use that scroll to actually "learn" the spell (add it to their spellbook).
...a spontaneous spellcaster (such as a bard or sorcerer) can make Scrolls of spells they cannot personally cast, but have access to via their tradition.
...the prepared divine casters basically gain no benefit, the rules interaction just sort of levels the playing field with regard to crafting.
They make radical changes at the last minute that won't be tested and the game goes live very different but possibly very broken. I'll wait to see if I buy that game.
This is more or less my position on the future of PF2. Except that at this point I have no reason to believe the printed product will even be worth the shelf-space.
I'll review the rules online, and if they defy my expectations I'll consider paying Paizo for their PDF. But as it stands I don't plan to ever buy another actual book from Paizo.
I was exceptionally excited about the prospects of PF2, and there are core elements that I love. Such as the Three-Action Economy and most of the Proficiency system (excepting elements regarding armor and shields). However the actual specific content (classes, feats spells, items) is boring and lackluster, and weak by design. Removing or replacing the content I dislike would require more work than building a campaign from scratch using one of the several "toolbox" systems designed for that purpose.
The worst offense is that the ruleset requires it's GMs to be biased and untrustworthy, which isn't the kind of person I want to play a game with (let alone be for any amount of time). I certainly wouldn't play under a PFS GM using these rules.
I wouldn't say that the CRBs layout is better or worse. They're basically much the same; or will be once PF2 is complete at any rate. However the point above about redundancy is accurate. The PF1 CRB includes a lot of redundant reminder text which the playtest rulebook lacks.
There are a few areas of the playtest rulebook though where the few minor changes to layout made the book much, much harder to use. For example, mixing all of the powers in with the spells was a serious misstep. It significantly increases the amount of time it takes to evaluate power-based options.
I'm the GM, but I wanted to know how long it took to create a finished character before asking my players to do so... So I built a cleric as my first test of the rulebook; it made me want to huck my book at a wall before I'd even run my first session.
Maybe there's a curtain you can move through but not see through. Maybe there's fog, or it's dark.
You can't define every possible situation.
No, they can't. But with half-a-dozen developers they could've at least covered the three most common situations.
1: A Barrier you can neither percieve or attack/travel through (such as a stone wall)
2: A Barrier you can percieve through, but not attack/travel through (such as glass wall)
3 A Barrier you can attack/travel through, but not percieve through (such as a paper wall or Silent Image)
Note: "percieve" in these cases being "to see". Which is the default sense the playtest assumes characters are using. But if they provided a default I could more easily apply common sense. For example, a glass wall might block a Keen-Eared Elf's hearing-based perception, but not a paper wall.
Nope. Item rarity should be determined on a setting level, not a character level.
I agree, however your complaint also applies to the original feat. The access mechanic remained because the system needs to remain functional in PFS where the GM literally isn't allowed to make that call. This isn't a list of ways I would have made a better game. These are consise changes to an existing product, designed to do the most good with the least revision. I can't go removing access mechanics from all the other feats (like Adopted). Instead focus on the benefits; which are that unlike the original, my version allows you to select common weapons, and uncommon weapons which aren't ancestral. In addition it trains you in the weapon. Which means a Human Wizard can become an expert in the Katana (or nearly any other single weapon) for just two ancestry feats (just like an Elven Wizard with their whole glut of weapons).
Quote:
I know that some of the tropes, like studs improving armor and padded being a joke aren't going away any time soon. But one detail that I think is reasonable to complain about is the split between half and full plate.
I've done my research as well, and while I disagree with some of your arguments... I'm not interested in debating armor theory. Rewriting the entire armor rules is outside the scope of the scope of my intent. The presense or absence of half- and full- plate as distinct armor types is no more relevent than the incorrectness of the term "chainmail". If you want historically accurate armor you'll have to talk to Paizo. Also note this is the only house-rule I've tagged as 'Optional', that wasn't an accident. It is only appropo if you're using the playtest rulebook's selection of (historically inaccurate, and selectively anachronistic) armor.
The following is an assorted collection of rules changes I would make to the playtest rulebook (as of update 1.5)
Stronger Ancestries
• Unconventional Weaponry has the following alternate benefits: "You’ve familiarized yourself with a weapon from another ancestry or culture. Choose a common or uncommon weapon. You're trained in, and have access to that weapon."
Earlier Ability Boosts
• Every character classes' Ability Boosts have the following alternate benefits: "At 5th level and every 4 levels thereafter, you boost four different ability scores. You can use these ability boosts to increase your ability scores above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18."
Improved Infusions
• The alchemist's Advanced Alchemy has the following additional benefit (inserted at the end of the first paragraph): "When you create an infused alchemical item that allows a saving throw, you can change its DC to your class DC."
• The alchemist's Studied Resonance has the following additional benefit: "You gain 3 bonus Resonance Points, but you can only use these bonus Resonance Points when you create alchemical items during your daily preparations (see Advanced Alchemy)."
• Remove Powerful Alchemy from the list of Alchemist Feats.
Fighter's Armor Training
• If you're a Fighter whose Key Ability is Dexterity, you gain Light Armor Expertise at 11th level instead of Heavy Armor Expertise. Light Armor Expertise has the following benefits: "Your proficiency rank for light armor and all shields increases to expert."
• If you're a Fighter whose Key Ability is Dexterity, your Armor Mastery ability has the following alternate benefits: "Your proficiency rank for light armor and shields increases to master. Your proficiency rank for medium armor and unarmored defense increases to expert."
Wizard's Foci
• The wizard's Arcane Spellcasting has the following additional benefit (inserted between the first and second sentences): "Because you're a wizard, you can usually hold an arcane focus or spellbook as part of your Material Casting and Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don't need spell components or another hand free."
Armor Resistance (Optional)
• While wearing a given suit of armor, you gain (or increase your existing) resistance to the listed damage types (see below). Reduce the resistance given by a poor-quality suit of armor by 2 (to a minimum of 0). Increase the resistance given by a high-quality suit of armor by the listed item bonus for an item of its quality. Note: The resistance values were chosen based upon my estimation of how much worse given armor types are compared to the "best possible defense in the game." Which is being Legendary in Unarmored, with a 24 Dexterity and Mage Armor X (via either bracers or spell).
Light Armor
• Padded (bludgeoning 3)
• Leather (slashing 1)
• Studded Leather (slashing 2)
• Chain Shirt (slashing 2)
Medium Armor
• Hide (bludgeoning and slashing 1)
• Scale Mail (piercing and slashing 1)
• Chainmail (bludgeoning and slashing 3)
• Breastplate (piercing and slashing 2)
Heavy Armor
• Splint Mail (piercing and slashing 3)
• Half Plate (bludgeoning, piercing and slashing 2)
• Full Plate (bludgeoning, piercing and slashing 3)
Uncommon Martial Melee Weapon
• Bayonette (10 sp | 1d4 P | 1 Light | 1 Hand | Spear | Agile, Attached to crossbow or firearm, Two-Hand d8)
• Court Sword (18 sp | 1d6 P | Light | 1 Hand | Sword | Agile, Disarm, Parry)
• Odachi (40 sp | 1d12 S | 2 Bulk | 2 Hands | Sword | Versatile P)
Uncommon Exotic Ranged Weapons
• Hand Pistol (250 sp | 1d8 P | 40 ft. | Reload 2 | 1 Bulk | 1 Hand | Gun | Deadly d10)
• 10 pinlock cartridges (10 sp | 1 Light | Alchemical, Consumable)
• Long Rifle (400 sp | 1d12 P | 80 ft. | Reload 3 | 2 Bulk | 2 Hands | Gun | Deadly d10)
• 10 pinlock cartridges (10 sp | 1 Light | Alchemical, Consumable)
Pinlock Cartridge: Ammunition for pinlock firearms (including hand pistols, and long rifles) can be crafted in batches of up to 40 cartridges (20 if created by Advanced Alchemy, or 10 if created by Quick Alchemy).
Critical Specialization Effect (Gun): The target takes 1 additional damage per weapon damage die (including the extra dice from a critical hit).
Healing Surge
• You automatically succeed when overspending resonance points to activate any kind of Healing Potion or Elixir of Life (including an Elixir of Rejuvenation) while you are Dying.
Daily Heroics:
• Unless otherwise noted, you begin each adventure with 2 Hero Points, and lose all remaining Hero Points at the end of the adventure. You may gain 1 Hero Point each day during your daily preparations, and may have up to 3 Hero Points at any given time.
Realistic Exploration
• You can engage in a fatiguing tactic for up to 30 minutes, or a very fatiguing tactic for up to 5 minutes before becoming fatigued.
• You can engage in any tactic while fatigued, including fatiguing and very fatiguing tactics.
Paizo is the 'House', a game of Pathfinder II is a 'Baccarat Table' (basically a group all betting on a coin-flip with 1:10 odds of a tie, and a 1:50 edge to the house IIRC), and Society Play is the 'casino floor'.
Like it or not; it is in the house's best interest to ensure as average a playing experience as possible on the casino floor; since that determines their ability to keep opening baccarat tables.
Which is all a really convoluted way of saying that I think Paizo needs to focus on not creating mechanics that break even in "highly improbable circumstances". Such as getting stuck in a dying loop until you rage-quit the table. If it can break, it will, and every time it does it costs Paizo credibility, and thus future profits.
I am happy with most* of the Heritage elements of the 1.4 Update. Sure they're individually lackluster... Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.
*:
I'm confused why Humans get shafted on their weaponry expertise. Unconventional Weaponry is somehow both horrifically abusable, and a really obvious feat tax. Yet Paizo not only left it as is, but built a feat atop it that spotlights just how bad it really is. For reference:
It's abusable because you can use retraining rules to acquire this feat which does nothing other than give you permission to buy a given ancestry's uncommon weapons, buy said weapon(s) and likely some extras just in case, and finally retrain the ancestry feat back to whatever you actually wanted or use during adventures. Nevermind that anybody can be Adopted by members of that Ancestry instead; thereby gaining access to their much better weapon familiarity feat chains (which actually grant proficiency).
It's a feat-tax because once you've got the weapon in hand it has no further effect beyond being the prerequisite for Unconventional Expertise. Worse, you still need to become proficient with the chosen weapon somehow; which will generally require investing yet another feat. Since if you were a character class that started out proficient with decent weapons, you'll become an expert with them eventually anyway (and thus don't need an expertise feat anyway). Again, you might as well just be Adopted instead, at least it's a tax with a better pay-off.
Actually the quoted rule doesn't say anything about penalties "capping out", all it is specifying is the range of values the GM should expect to see (1-4). Paizo treats it's own rules more like weak suggestions.
However barring the specific rule in the Awakening Curse, multiple instances of being Drained wouldn't normally stack; nor would the reduction in current or maximum hit points in my opinion (but I admit that interaction should be made clearer one way or another). Thus why the curse notes it "increases" the drained condition; otherwise the seperate instances would overlap to little effect like any other condition. If the increase had been intended to 'cap-out', such a clause would have been mentioned in the specific rule that allowed it to stack at all.
I once worked at a casino, where I learned that statistical probabilities are only relevent to the House. Any given player can experience wildly improbable results, such as winning a bonus with 1:25 odds eight times in a row (a true story). It doesn't matter how unlikely it is, given enough time it will happen to somebody.
I just give one extra hero point to those players that make the surveys. Lol
I'm not fond of Hero Point like mechanics, but I'm using them for the Playtest anyway.
However I detest the idea of favortism, and the fact that the current Hero Point rules encourage it is a huge issue for me. So as an alternative I award two hero points at the begining of a four-hour session, and one more at some point during it.
Update 1.5 is disappointing to me. Thankfully it won't affect my players in the slightest; none of them are playing offensive casters, and in six combat encounters nobody has dropped to zero HP. I don't think they even know what Hero Points are (despite my frequent reminders).
Since the new dying mechanic is demonstrably disfunctional, I'll most likely be house-ruling it at my table before somebody finally dies from, or worse, rage-quits because they got locked into an extended 'recovery' loop.
I won't be testing the new Focus system, my group was completely disinterested. Personally, the only things I liked in this whole document are the expanded bombs, and the changes to Scrolls. I would like the new Staff mechanic if I didn't hate the surrounding mechanics (Focus). The Focus mechanics are ill concieved, and really drive home just how arbitrarially limited magic items are...
Who needs a Hat of Disguise that only works for an Hour at a time, requires a full minute to reactivate, and will inevitably fail in the middle of almost any social encounter? Nobody. That it would also compete with a Bard's Lingering Composition for resources is just cruel. I hate the new wand mechanics so much I simply won't use them. If PF2 is published with this version of wands; they'll be house-ruled out at my table. As a player it'd be a mechanic I avoided entirely, and I generally like tracking details.
Regarding PF1 Wands:
I've played exactly enough PFS to see the 'CLW Wand Problem' in action. No party of four 1st level characters should have access to four different wands (granted two were mine... but even so). It is an economic issue PFS created for themselves.
I've also run more than enough D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to know that the version seen in home games isn't a problem* or an exploit. GMs are given every tool they need to control the player's access to magical items; including any number of ways of depriving characters of "problematic items". One has to accept the risks when they make exception to the rules for magic item availability or chose not to use the resource management solutions they were given (such ad Green Slime, Fireballs, Rust Monsters, amd Thieves). For their part, player's shouldn't be looked at akstance for making intelligent decisions.
*Except to the degree that WotC shouldn't have made wand charges so much cheaper than potions, and Paizo didn't bother to change it (for reasons I'm not interested in debating).
I see a lot of threads that could be resolved with a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Where is the best place for the FAQ-like closed ended questions to be raised where they have a high likelihood of getting a Developer answer?
There isn't one. Nor do the developers necessarially even know the answers to those simple questions. I get the strong impression most of the developers are using internal playtest documents rather than the playtest rulebook, and that few (if any) of them are even passingly familiar with the contents of the actual playtest rulebook.
Sanctuary is a nice added layer of defense... but with the current monster statistics it's bound to pop pretty quickly. Making it an expensive tactic to use unless you're fighting mooks, against whom you didn't need the protection anyway.
Fleeing doesn't automatically = wasting a turn while your opponents get free shots on you. Someone who is fleeing would prioritize running to the closest place that let's them have cover from whatever is making them flee.
This is very true, and also why I specified "if used correctly" and "a melee or short range combatant", who're the ones most likely to be within range to demoralize anyway. A long-range combatant likely only loses one round, or maybe only an action and a higher range penalty.
Demoralize's best use isn't to take pot-shots against the victim (don't hit the mes'ed mob yo), but rather removing certain combatants (such as a defender or healer) so that you can focus fire on opponents that needed their support.
Demoralize is a pretty dirty, and an overly effective use of a single action. It is basically an Attack which doesn't suffer MAP, and if used correctly can cost the target multiple rounds.
For example; during a boss fight with a Weak Ghost Commoner (so lvl 3 and -2 to all published statistics) a Critical Success chased my group's melee-Fighter out of a small crypt, screaming like a B-movie victim. That one action cost her both the round she spent fleeing and the round it took her to return.
Two rounds without worrying about a melee or short range combatant's contribution is far too strong a benefit for a check that doesn't have the Attack Trait. So I say, odd as it feels, Demoralize should be an Attack, and thus suffer MAP.
I would like to see a few more quick-casting cantrips. Some one-action attack cantrips which cause a minor combat penalty or a very small amount of damage would be nice for a lot of characters.
The posters in question were referring to the use of a racially charged term being banned on the forums. This term had been used in some published Paizo materials so they felt that were being unfairly targeted...but the moderator was pretty clear that, no matter what was printed in the past, it's not allowed here now.
That confusion (regarding a term used for people of mixed ancestry in the books) did eventually come to light at least. The moderator also deleted a post (and its replies) for calling a particular ancestry feat "garbage". The term quoted was explicitly called out as being the reason the post was deleted.
Some more posts were removed later for various resons, but the end result was that multiple sets of posts just disappeared over the course of the day, replaced by moderator explanations that only added confusion (for those not in-the-know) and fuel to the PR bonfire (for those in-the-know).
If we're making this a game; I suppose I just have to play too!
I am a... *rolls some dice* Bleachling Gnome Warrior-Druid.
Spoiler:
"Silverbeard of Bag" – Bleachling Gnome Warrior-Druid. Abilities Str 10 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 12
Druidic Order Animal (has 4 SP; can cast Heal Animal for 1 SP)
Proficiencies Perception (T), Fortitude (E), Reflex (T), Will (E), Simple Weapons & Scimitar (T).
Skills (all Trained) Athletics (B), Diplomacy, Nature (B), Stealth, Survival, Warfare Lore (B)
Feats Animal Speaker (B), Animal Accomplice (Raven) (1st), Quick Repair (B), Animal Companion (Wolf) (B).
Starting Gear (4 B; 3 L) Oaken Staff (0 sp; 1 B), Oaken Heavy Shield (1 gp; 1 B; 3 Hardness), Oaken Breastplate (8 gp; 2 B) and Gauntlets (4 sp; 2 L), Adventurer's Kit (1 gp; 1 B)*, Holly and Mistletoe, Repair Kit (3 gp; 1 B)*, Saddlebags (2 sp; 1 L)*, and Coins (14 sp).
*(Carried by companion)
Backstory Silverbeard is an ex-tactician who was exiled from his homeland for starting a bloody civil war. Cast out and traumatized, he wandered an unfamiliar forest for decades. Living off the land, and avoiding the many unfamiliar peoples he encountered. Eventually he became one with the forest, and it revealed its primal secrets to him. His newfound bond with nature allowed him to survive the Bleaching. However he wasn't the same gnome he once was; he'd forgotten his name and much of his past. "Silverbeard" is just what the few tallfolk he's spoken to called him.
It is awesome that you've been given better tools to do your job! But you should't be shy about asking for those quality of life improvements. The worst they'll do is say no, and more likely "not yet".
Some Environmental Adaptation general feats would go a long way towards filling the gaps created by the environmentally adapted heritages. Also note they're pretty damn generic. Just let an elf take "Desert Elf" (as Desert Dwarf, but with the Elf trait instead of Dwarf) as appropriate. Golarion won't crumble.
That person went above and beyond just running Raw They Ran MURDER RAW. RAW Extreme or some such.
I think most of Collete's rulings were entirely reasonable for her GMing style, and legal per RAW (or even suggested). She has admited her style is more wargame-like, and there is nothing objectively wrong with that. The rules need to be able to handle all sorts of GMs. If they fall apart this quickly when used as written there is a serious problem with the rules as written.
No, it absolutely isn't 'fine'.
"Method of Use Held, 1 hand" means the magic item has to literally be held in your hand to activate, meaning you have to draw and stow the gloves just like any weapon or tool. If you were 'wearing' them, you'd have to take them off and hold them in hand to use them. I'll grant it is obvious how it is supposed to work... but as written it doesn't. They should have an entry like the Healer's Gloves, or Glove of Storing; "Method of Use Worn, gloves".
You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.
I'd say that is a very individual and wrong assumption. I regularly upvote if I think the post contributes positively to the discussion. A dev weighing in, even if s/he says something I disagree with, counts about 90% as something like that. Hell, I even give Gorbacz the occasional upvote, because he says something which contributes positively to a discussion.
This! I regularly upvote developer posts.
I think I am amongst the most agressively negative and critical posters here (when I'm active). I make no secret my distrust of Paizo or my biased opinions about their publishing strategys. But when Mark or Jason or most anybody else from Paizo takes the time to post here I'll favorite the post because they are, as a rule, smart people who're paid to ponder and discuss these topics in particular. So their posts are extremely interesting and informative to an amateur like myself. I can also just appreciate their feedback, even if I disagree with it for whatever reason.
I've already harped on this a bunch... but Paizo has yet to fix it, so...
John Lynch 106 wrote:
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
I would love to be the guy that ran the playtest 100% by the RAW. But Collete already demonstrated that doing so results in a 100% TPK rate, and they weren't even following the most egregiously broken rule.
Per the RAW, all hazards are explicitly noncreatures (per the defination of the Hazard Trait), and you can only Strike creatures... which means it is flat-out illegal to Strike Hazards, despite the rules clearly assuming that you are supposed to be able to attack them somehow.
Even with the 1.3 update it is still almost impossible to complete a typical adventure without the GM cheating or house-ruling something.
The fact that there are still a few spells which can target objects (Almost certainly oversights) is just plain insulting. I seriously wonder if anybody at Paizo actually bothered to read through the worthless drivel they had the gall to call the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook.
I strongly believe that Studied Resonance should grant a flat boost (to 3+int mod) in addition to its current benefits.
Those 3 points would close the gap between the Alchemist and Cleric as healers at low level. As they'd be able to make up to 6 more infused elixirs each day, or 12-18 elixirs per day at 1st level.
I always liked Weapon Group based proficiency system from Unearthed Arcana; which gave proficiency in sets of thematically related weapons (and a creative GM could always write custom cultural weapon groups).
Overall I like the idea of more permutation and customization in initial proficiencies, but I think instead of being freeform, there should be set and free proficiencies granted at various steps. Thus ancesteies, backgrounds, and classes can have consistent benefits, but also some room for customization.
So all elves might naturally be Trained in Reflexes (which might either rise to expert, or become a free adventuring-proficiency if your background or character class also grants training in Reflexes. Adventuring proficiencies would be ranks in things like Armor and Weapon groups, Spellcraft, Saving Throws, and Perception (everything else is a Background Proficiency; despite sometimes being useful for adventuring).
The confusing part was that the Update claims to have changed the rule, when all it really did was clarify that the example on page 175 was irrelevent, and that Shield Block works as written.
I don't mind the Paladin being the heavily-armored base class. However I wish for the core rulebook to have reasonably generic archetypes for becoming legendary in a given proficiency.
Grey Maiden has too much baggage, Stalwart Defender would have been preferable.
It is an insultingly good archetype. I expect a lot of Rogue- and Wizard-Alchemists in our future. Not to mention the occasional mega-healer Cleric-Alchemist.
Honestly, Alchemist makes for a much better archetype than a base class as written.
Booping someone with a wand takes 1 round, using Treat Wounds takes 60 rounds. The difference is substantial. Thankfully this is the now-default amount of time it takes to repair a shield, wait for a shield spell to recharge, or identify items.
Treat Wounds will save my test-party, 2/3rds of whom are trained in Medicine because the party's only magical healing is the bard's Soothe.
There are no mechanics concerning how monsters identify dying/dead conditions, so I rule in favor of monsters: they can generally tell if someone is still alive.
There are mechanics for learning information about a creature during play. It's called Recall Knowledge. I imagine most monsters are Untrained in Human Lore (Though I would also allow Medicine to be used instead, per the clause that the action list is not exhaustive, and that new actions can be defined as needed), and the check would be Hard for the creature's level: So it requires one action and a DC 15 check determine if a particular 1st level human was dead or just unconsious (using update 1.3s table). Critically fail and the creature must act on false information.
Personally I don't reveal a creatures HP total, or track the PCs HP either! Hit Points are an abstraction of many health factors. Not an actual number of nicks and scrapes an enemy can count as a free action.
NPCs shouldn't know what an adventuring party's capabilities are without making an appropriate check. So unless I've got a trained soldier who's seen the enemy party using healing magic and identified it (or its results were blatently obvious), there is no reason for them to 'waste time' finishing off an enemy they've already downed.
Given that there is an Antipaladin in The Lost Star which demonstrates they already know what a CE Paladin's features would look like... I am sure the final rulebook's version will have either two or four paths (LG & CE, or all four corner alignments).
Of course, if they give Antipaladin it's own entry instead, there is a chance they'll be focused on weapon mastery instead of armor mastery.
Why does Paizo hate heavy armor so much? I just want to play a knight in shining armor... that hurls fireballs from the back of their pegasus... Why is that so hard!?
