White Dragon

Captain Morgan's page

Organized Play Member. 3,881 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
singingzombies wrote:
Quandary wrote:
singingzombies wrote:
Oh poo, guess I’ll allow the Playtest Bard player to continue to Shield Block till level 3 and then make him take the Shield Block general feat. It would be weird if he “forgot how to” for a whole level. Punished for starting the campaign with Playtest rules.
Well the player very well may not want to spend a Feat taking it, so you may benefit from taking slightly broader view. With or without the Feat, a character is doing substantially the same thing (raising the Shield), the Feast just grants certain benefits re: DR. But the effect of DR isn't really distinguishable from the enemy happening to roll less damage, so without metagaming about the process of appying DR to "original" damage, there isn't really any overt change to notice. Technically the character might notice they are statistically taking more damage now, but distinguishing that from the normal level increase in enemy damage seems pretty dubious. Stepping away from metagaming player perspective, I don't really see a problem re: character immersion.

Yeah, I rationalized that shields still function from an immersion-level without shield block but this is slightly different because:

1) The party got a Sturdy Shield magical item as a drop and the only noticeable difference from a normal shield (I haven't seen the final version) is that it absorbs more damage when used to Shield Block

2) the player has been using the ability with the reaction already and enjoyed it. (I also like that shields feel more proactive this version. It's a good change) Bards also don't have consistent use for their reaction compared to other classes as well.

The simplest solution to me is to have the Bard take the feat to keep the build 100% legal and I have a feeling he will be ok with that (We all knew builds would change ultimately when converting over) but in the possibility it isn't. I've been thinking about handing out extra feats as rewards. I'm just heisitant with doing this 1st Campaign since I...

Are they human? Humans can get a general feat with either their heritage or ancestry feat,


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be shocked if Champions don't get Shield Block out the box since the dwarf champion was doing it at level 1 in Oblivion Oath. And they are at least as tied to shields as the fighter is.

NemoNoName wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
I mean, for in combat use it wasn't great (decent if you REALLY need to trip the boss lol), but not every power has to be a combat-specific move. +1d4 to certain skill checks can be really useful outside of combat.

Problem is with actions and lenght. Length and inability to cast it over and over means it's not narratively appropriate for any actitives, and 2 actions to cast means it doesn't really fit for really fast, reactionary activity.

To give examples, it's appropriate for trying to jump a small chasm, but not appropriate for scaling cliffs, sneaking (here we also come with a problem that casting it is itself potentially revealing), or for example, using it when you are trying to balance to cross a rope bridge or frozen river.

Similar problem with Sigil. It's simply not useful enough frequently enough. I would actually give it to all wizards automatically for free. Prestidigitation could've easily been Transmutation school and useable enough.

The thing is, the wizard already gets more cantrips out the box than other casters. So they aren't exactly strapped for cantrips. Getting one less than other specialists doesn't really seem like the end of the world, and we will probably get other options to replace it with eventually. It is also prety great thematically for transmutaters to have, given its ties to guys like Karzough who liked to plaster their face on everything. (Also, there's a cleric in my game who has been preparing that on the regular and spamming it left and right just to mark her territory as they take over enemy dungeons.)

That said, moving prestidigitation to transmutation sounds reasonable.

And the new version of the Focus spell seems to be both quicker to cast and renewable, which addresses both complaints. It won't help much on a longer series of checks, but often enough physical skill checks are handled as one roll out of combat. As an example from Doomsday Dawn, giving an ally enough oomph to break down a door on their first try means getting the drop on the boss vs the boss laying an ambush for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

I'd tip my bag of holding into his bag of holding. Though dumping 18 pints of platinum onto a countertop sounds fun too.

But this isn't a normal transaction; I don't suppose many people in our world would buy a $20 million dollar passenger jet with sackfuls of cash.

Well, we have a much more robust banking and electronic payment system than Golarion does. I suppose it isn't impossible that in certain cities you could deposit your gold with a bank and use the equivalent of checks or money transfers at least within that city, though. But I'd guess that for any campaign that has you hopping between unaligned settlements (Like, say, the upcoming Age of Ashes) you've got to be handing over copious amounts of cash at some point. Now some of that could be getting your coins turned into platinum bars, but you still have the weight of platinum at that point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Voss wrote:


Yes. Though also the second. No hyperbole.
Prayer, heroism, bulls strength,cats grace (and etc) and most spells like those are gone.

Bless, magic weapon/fang, inspire courage and haste are pretty much the only survivors, and the latter doesn't give bonuses. Bless and inspire don't stack and magic weapon/fang don't stack with items and don't have greater versions.

Can you share some photos of the spell lists?

Obviously it wouldn't give the whole picture but i figure paizo would be grumpy if you shared every spell with us.

Wait, you're assuming Voss has the actual final book? I wouldn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2 of my 5 players in one campaign started with a 16. One is a cleric/rogue, and considering her lack of offensive spells it makes sense to increase her dexterity or charisma for attacking or channels. The other is a two handed fighter who is still on even footing for accuracy with most of the party (and in fact will be ahead when we switch to PF2) and still does the most damage despite only having +3 from strength. It helps that the first expert weapon drop was a maul, so he's been on even footing with the archer fighter. I expect even if the archer pulls ahead for accuracy, the melee fighter will still be the leading damage dealer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hendelbolaf wrote:
People are posting pictures of their 2nd edition subscriptions arriving today. I thought it was all going to be released on August 1st at Gen Con...

It seems that with this many shipments, trying to tie all of them to arrive on the same date would be difficult. And they may have opted to get some of them arriving early rather than late.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I did consider that special edition, I decided that it didn't make sense for me, personally, to pay extra to NOT get a cool picture of a dragon. (I really like dragons.)

But I'm excited for you! And jealous of course. Mine is still in Fife, WA with no projected ETA.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Ok for comparison, Bastard Sword Caster vs. Greatsword Caster.

Assume both are using the 2-handed grip. If they want to cast a spell, they'd have to use an action to free up one hand. Then they can Somatically cast a spell. The difference is, the Bastard sword could now immediately make 1-hand attacks again, but the Greatsword user would have to use another action to "regrip" before attacking again?

Not quite. letting go with one hand is considered "dropping" and is a free action. going back to a 2H grip is an action.

Not bad.

And means Bastard Sword over Greatsword for better action economy with Multiclass Fighter-Wizards.

Well, that depends where they ended up on somatic actions. By the end of the playtest you could use a somatic action with your hands full. IIRC material components were the only ones that actually needed a hand free, and even then sorcerers could ignore that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I have been running this campaign in the second edition playtest rules, and plan to convert to second edition proper very soon. Book 2 was very fun, although a little easy as most of the enemies were very low level ghouls. We are currently just getting to Graul farmstead, but I'm looking ahead at Black Magga down the line. She's been hyped up already with some gather information checks, and I look forward to the "oh crap" moment when she shows up.

The problem is making sure she is survivable. In PF1, the enormous room for breaking the optimization curve meant many group not only survived her, but outright killed her. In PF2 the math is much tighter and level matters much more. Assuming they are level 9 when the fight goes down and she's level 15, even their martials buffed by Inspire Courage will need a 17-18 on the dice just to hit her on a first attack, an she's probably going to have a 50% chance to crit any of them on her first strike. That's before touching her damage resistance and myriad horrifying special abilities. She's gonna be auto-succeeding saving throws and critically succeeding many of them.

I can't see anyway the party can go toe to toe with her, so it basically seems to come down to whether they can distract her while keeping a distance. The Ranger can take pot shots from 200 feet away, the casters can fly to stay out of her reach... And they can hope for the best. I'm hoping I can instill the adequate sense of danger for them not to try anything more ambitious. The casters zooming 120 feet up firing magic missiles seems like it might buy 4 rounds.

I don't really want to diminish her by lowering her stats to where the melee folks can stand and bang with her, but I'd like to keep them contributing too. I've read some snippets about folks running her more like a natural disaster or something the party needs to drop buildings on. Anyone have recommendations for stuff like that? Ways the melee folks can be helping to evacuate folks while the ranged and fliers keep her distracted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
If you're using a 2-handed weapon that isn't a d12, that weapon almost certainly has a property on it that already makes you not want to use Power Attack. A flail user is trying to perform combat maneuvers, for example, and trying to fit in Power Attack will make it complicated to do that.

With MAP confirmed as applying to combat maneuvers which have critical failure conditions? I really wouldn't advise it, unless you have Assurance.

(Guess what one of my first house rules will be.)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

In all the hubbub about fans getting their books, we haven't been talking about the stream much.

Fly now lasts 5 minutes instead of 1 and makes you fly at 20 feet or your land speed, whichever is faster.

Focus pools may be capped at 2 or 3 points? Not sure what the deal is there, but Logan made a comment that seemed to imply it. Also, we have confirmed sorcerers don't need to rest or do any special activity to Refocus, it just happens automatically. Clerics of healing deities can also Refocus from healing people.

Monster Identification is confirmed to have a table telling you what skills are tied to different kinds of monsters. One interesting thing is that Craft can be used to Recall Knowledge about constructs, as well generally evaluating the construction of objects. Sounds like this replaces Knowledge Engineering.

Skill DCs are going to have a "by level table" for stuff that should be rated by level, but the UTEML static DCs also got some elaboration. Sounds like they will be +/- 2/5/10 from their base levels to adjust for different difficulty levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OOOoh, what about Black Maga? Did she make it in there?

I gotta say, if anything seems like it would TPK for where it is placed in the adventure, it's that ladymonster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anti-Magic field was rare in the playtest, and I don't recall that being the case for any other spells. A glance at the spell list seems to confirm that. So it seems like a good guess for the CRB.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


Well, in the playtest, rarity was the answer. Those spells were marked as uncommon, so you generally needed to get the permission of your GM to have them. [...]
To elaborate slightly, "getting permission from the GM" in this context typically means "finding it in an adventure". If you beat a wizard who's been scrying on you, gaining his spellbook as treasure and copying the otherwise uncommon spells out of it is totally legitimate. "Uncommon" is generally going to mean "must gain access through feats or story progression".

It's also possible that you will eventually be able to track down an uncommon spell through enough downtime legwork as well, possibly at an increased price because of its rarity. Rare spells, though, are pretty much special rewards...

That said, those are all defaults, so your group is free to do whatever you like, from changing around what's uncommon and rare, to just making everything common, and more!

I suppose I should have specified what I meant by "permission from the GM." I count "changing the defaults" as part of that. If you ask your GM and they say it is fine, Bob is your uncle. Even if you don't have a feat giving you access or haven't found it in the story yet.

As an example, my player was very excited to bust out Raise Dead, not realizing it was uncommon, and I let it slide because the AP had a couple of scrolls of it as loot drops anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Reckless wrote:
lordredraven wrote:
So if I grok the meaning of power attack, since it is two attacks, if it's your first attack it's most likely at -5 to hit in exchange for an extra die? Extra die is good but in a system where -5 real drops your crit burst damage not sure it is a fair trade off

I'm pretty sure it's only 1 strike, which is 2 actions and counts as 2 attacks for your multiattack penalty. Meaning that if it's your first attack, it's at full value, but your next one is at -10. If it's your second strike, it would be at -5.

this is also how I understood it to be.
I see. Kind of like 1E the Vital Strike feat.
Very much, yes. That has been a vocal complaint about the naming of the feat as well; but it works virtually like an evolving Vital Strike.

People say it should be called Vital Strike because that's how it worked in PF1, but Vital Strike never really made much sense as a name. It isn't like your targeting the creature's vitals with extra precision damage. You were just making one big powerful swing. A powerful attack, if you will.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:
I'm curious about how they decided to handle traditionally 'story-breaking' spells like scrying, divination, teleportation, and raise dead.

Well, in the playtest, rarity was the answer. Those spells were marked as uncommon, so you generally needed to get the permission of your GM to have them. But they make for fun story awards too when the GM deems appropriate. For example, my players defeated a creature with the Nightmare template, and by conducting a ritual involving its corpse they were able to learn spells it knew, namely Shadow Walk and Nightmare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Well whatever, I want to talk about some of the stuff. Cat's already out of the bag:

Shield Block as a General Feat This is interesting! One it shows that maybe some Combat centered General Feats that provide actual actions have had the precedent set here (an equipment specific one too). How far they will go with this is interesting, but I would expect Fighter and Champion to get this for free.

Wizard Progression Table Lots of interesting stuff going on here that wasn't in the Playtest. For starters, it looks like it's pretty likely most people will get free General Feats for increased Saves, which is probably necessary and allows "staggered" progression on saves for each Class (so there are notable weaknesses/strengths).

Also seems like new abilities made it into the Wizard and now at Every Odd level they get something else as well as their normal stuff (with the exception of 3rd). Resolve is likely a Will increase. Defensive Robes is likely an Expert -> Master on Unarmed.

Interestingly, they get Weapon Specialization.

Not sure if Weapon Specialization is going to be just a Weapon Proficiency Increase or if it will be in line with the Armor Specialization effects also mentioned (Perhaps Cones/Rays have a "specialization effect" or something that can be chosen).

Also looks like it's confirmed that Class Feats for all at level 1 and then every even, which is very nice.

Interesting notes:

Ancestry and Background are now coupled with an "And". Not sure that means anything, but it was deliberate.

Cantrips scale very well now. Now at level 7th level your standard Cantrips are doing 4dX + Spellcasting Mod. Telekinetic Projectile also got nerfed to 1d6, which given the new scaling, is probably appropriate

The Level 12 Alchemist feats look solid. The Poison one we catch the tail end of from Level 10 also looks pretty solid. Nothing mind blowing, but certainly good.

Proficiency values and Action Markers are defined on the character...

Just to clarify, necromancer is almost certainly a school choice still, not a thesis. WBL looks almost exactly the same as the playtest (they just added a handy lump sum column for folks who liked that) and Imperial was in the playtest and acted as the equivalent of the PF1 arcane bloodline.

I do like that shield block is a feat or feature now. The playtest mechanics for gaining shield proficiency were hella complicated, It makes sense that any old person can hold it up for cover but you need training to actively soak a hit with it. In the playtest, IIRC, it was the other way around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnCap Dawg wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)
From now on this will be referred to as the "down the street date" ;-)
And real estate prices for nearby houses will go through the roof!

Their real estate prices already seem to be through the roof, actually, given some comments from Oblivion Oath.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers also sound like they can recover focus without doing a specific activity, just having time pass.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So question for Paizo... would you like us not to discuss the details of the reveals on here? Because my hype levels are at maximum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Every character should be able to do borderline impossible things. Non-combat things should ideally be tied to skill feats, magic things should be tied to spells or focus powers, and in-combat martial things should be equally achievable by Fighters specializing in those martial things.

I don't think you can base a whole class solely on its ability to do something cool without going into detail about how they do that.

If it's pseudo-magical luck, then you've got some sort of luck-magic class going on with some cool potential.

If it's derived from training and skill, well say hi to Fighter and Monk.

If it's sheer determination or gumption, say hi to Fighter again.

Panache? Seems like it's tied to being flamboyant and confident, so should be tied to Charisma, but why can't Fighters and Rogues be charismatic people able to do borderline impossible things with sufficient training?

This really resonated with me. And it is worth remembering that a lot of limits have been really dialed up-- playtest fighters could leap 30 feet straight up and spike an enemy out of the sky like the volleyball by like level 8. The monk shenanigans with wall run are CRAZY. Rogues start walking through walls and Rangers can find their target across all of existence.

Which isn't to say you can't make a class with a panache pool, but our bar for "impossible things martials can do" has already been raised without a resource pool attached to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I never loved the 75% rule, but that's because most of my players don't inherently enjoy shopping. Finding out that you went through the chore of digging through all the magic items to see if any interest you only to find out that item isn't there and you need to reevaluate your purchase plan feels frustrating.

But I've also seen players who build stock market mechanics inside campaigns. For some folks, having a realistic market is more immersive than avoiding excessive book keeping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:

For those that enjoyed the show, Joe and Troy just announced they will be running a one-shot on Friday night on twitch using the *official PF2 rules and will be running it as a prequel as the characters will be knocked down to lvl2. So perhaps we’ll learn how the Orphan Puncher first started punching orphans.

*Official in the sense they actually have the final PF2 rules. However applying the rules correctly is not their strong suit as Jason likes to tell them.

My body is ready.

Also, thanks to Rek and the mod team for trying to get this back on track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, Brutish Shove is a strictly better option than a strike for your second or third attack, right? You're not forced to make the shove if you don't want to. I would use it often unless I had an even better press feat to make use of, which is fine by my standards (unless some of the feats end up so good, you'll never use any others).
Eh, depends. As a level 2 feat maybe? It depends on what the level 1 options end up being; but this only makes them flat-footed 1) after you hit them with what ends up being your second strike and 2) only until the end of your current turn. From seeing what the Fighter could do at later levels in the PT i’m sure this ends up being a very powerful tool, but as early as level 2? If you aren’t shoving them it’s not that great with what little info we currently have.

Ah jeez, you're right. "End of your current turn." It was "until the start of your next turn" in the playtest. That's pretty much the only downgrade to this version of the feat I've seen. Well, that and it is sized capped, but the PT version was probably supposed to be as well and they just forgot the text. Improved Brutish Shove had some text indicating it was supposed to go up a size category, implying the original feat should have had the size capped in the first place. (I wonder if you can bump this up with Titan Wrestler? Maybe not by RAW...)

I'd say this feat still feels better than its PT version. Inflicting both flatfooted and the shove (plus allowing you to move with the shove) instead of *your opponents choice between the two* still feels better even if it doesn't make them flatfooted for your allies. I bet you can use the shove to push them into a flank anyway. And I'd imagine Improved Brutish shove not only lets you do it to large enemies but could extend the duration of the flatfooted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Using Power Attack as your second strike seems counter-synergistic with Brutish Shove, which must be your second strike. I guess it's a choice between more damage and more control.

Well, he didn't choose Brutish Shove in the end, after all, so maybe it isn't meant to be the perfect pairing? After all, if he hadn't taken the wizard dedication there still would have been other fighter feats to pick from.

But the thing about Brutish Shove (and control options in general) is that they are situational. Making an enemy flat-footed is irrelevant if the enemy is already flat-footed (there are a lot of ways to make this happen) and Shoving them around the battle field is going to get varying results depending on the battle field. Brutish Shove is going to be very good indeed in certain situations, but when it isn't, having Strike > Power Attack as a fallback seems like a good way to maximize your damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of the alchemist getting 4 items for every advanced alchemy reagent used, largely because that is enough to give one to each party member. But it might be worth actually testing how strapped they feel for resources in actual play first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
If you're looking for a system that's tamer at high levels, 5e -might- be for you. Numbers in that game go up WAY slower and it results in a dynamic when even a high level party can be threatened by a significant number of low level enemies. You get stronger abilities and MUCH stronger spells as you level, which means some builds and classes definitely can dominate large numbers of weaker foes, at least to a point, but there are still ways to make more modest threats a threat still.

I'd like to point out that 5e isn't really better when it comes to magic making for gonzo plots. The bounded accuracy flattens the powercurve from a numerical standpoint, but outside of combat the spells are more plot breaking than the spells in the playtest. For example, casters get fly a level earlier in 5e, and both fly and invisibility last for 10 minutes out the box. Dimension door lets you carry another person, and teleport only takes 1 standard action to cast. The concentration mechanics mean your caster can't fly and be invisible at the same time in a fight, but combat isn't usually the big problem with plots breaking down.

If you want to avoid such shenanigans but still play with the mechanics of PF or D&D your best bet is capping your level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could do it in the playtest, really. Shield boss or shield spikes could be attached to a shield to make it a d6 martial weapon. That's admittedly not great damage and it seems a little risky if your shield gets broken because you have then lost your weapon maybe. So not optimal, but doable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

I almost think the lore skills are just supposed to be a completely non mechanical boost that just enhances the flavour of a character

A

If you're using one of the generic background in the CRB, then probably. But campaign specific backgrounds? I see those being hella useful. Giant lore for the Giant Slayer background in Rise of the Runelords, as an example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Is everyone furiously transcribing the images right now? I don't see any discussion on the stream and they revealed a buncha feats and ancestries!

Most of the stuff they mentioned has been previewed before, as did all the stuff from those monk feat images. We got the names of all the ranger feats but nothing to contextualize them.

Now, we did get a 2 action focus spell for the Elemental Bloodline: Elemental Blast. 10 foot burst within 30 feet, 30 foot cone, 60 foot line. Deals 8d6 bludgeoning damage (or fire damage if your element is fire). It sounds like it is a 5th level focus spell, and heightened 2d6 per spell level. That's pretty decent for something you can recover between fights!

Mountain Stronghold: Allows you to take an action to get 2 more AC until your next turn-- it sounds like by increasing the dex cap upwards.

Ironblood stance: 8th level monk feat. Make iron sweep unarmed attacks that are sweeping, parrying, and brawling, and gives you Resistance 2 to ALL DAMAGE. Sounds like the resistance scales with level too.

Wizard thesis stuff: Improved familiar thesis. Gives you the familiar feat, and it gains an extra ability, and then another extra ability at 6, 12, and 18. (Also the familiar can be used as your Arcane Bond, but that sounds like a flavor thing.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually you can feed a potion to an ally as an action. Distance is a factor though. I ruled in my games an alchemist could toss an elixir as though it were a bomb and the ally could use their reaction to catch it.

We have a primary healer in my game who is a ranger with no magic though. He medicine skill gets you pretty dang far. And alchemists have good options with the healing focused research field.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kubetz wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
In the glass cannon playthrough the knowledge checks were in the open. Everyone knew about the critical fail and the flamingos ...

That is true. And in the Oblivion Oath where the atmosphere is bit more serious Jason did a secret check at some point. Not 100% sure where it was though, but hopefully someone else can remember what that check was about.

I think Jason used open roll and flamingos as an inspiration for more jokes and they really put those flamingos to a good use.

You can never be too careful when dealing with birds of the marsh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
NightTrace wrote:
I'm thinking we might see more deaths at first as people get used to the system.
That is a good thing to keep in mind as we get the early reports of PF2 games.
Yeah, we saw this in the playtest with lots of complaints of lethality in the first scenario. Largely from people who played by old assumptions "I stood there and hit it."

That was also fueled by the outlier of Colette Brunelle's game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.
I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.
AoOs might be gone, but if you want to limit enemy movement, grappling and tripping is easier than ever and arguably more effective than AoOs anyway. An AoO can be avoided just by using an action to step, or an enemy could choose to risk the hit because it is better than remaining in melee.
Don't you need a "readied action" to trip or grab someone as they attempt to move by you, or drink a protion/fire an arrow/etc.?

To do it when they attempt to move, sure. But my point is you don't need to wait for them to move. Grapple them and they have to roll to break out before they can move, which wastes one or more of their actions-- they may not get it on the first attempt. An AoO only costs them an action at worst to avoid. It also provides 20% failure chance of any manipulate action, such as drinking a potion or casting a spell. It doesn't impact ranged attacks though.

By comparison, the AoOs of PF1 were easily dodged with the 5 foot step or withdraw action, and your grapple or trip options provoked unless you had the right feats. So I'd say it is actually easier to inflict meaningful battlefield control in PF2. It is just a thing you have to actively do rather than a thing that passively happens for everyone.

Plus, a world where AoOs aren't the norm means enemies are more likely to provoke them against the rare PC that has them, which is quite nice for the fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.

I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.

WatersLethe wrote:

Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle.

I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.

The proficiencies and traits from Iron Gods, are actually a bigger concern for me.

Once that's dealt with the items would be relatively easy … if time consuming.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing.
I admit that my situation is kind of a "special case."

AoOs might be gone, but if you want to limit enemy movement, grappling and tripping is easier than ever and arguably more effective than AoOs anyway. An AoO can be avoided just by using an action to step, or an enemy could choose to risk the hit because it is better than remaining in melee.

We have a fighter in one game that grapples and trips all the time, despite having AoO. If he trips them, they lose an action and provoke when they stand. If he grapples them, they lose at least one action while they try to break free, and may have to waste a second action if they want to avoid AoO. Plus, both trip and grapple make the enemy flat-footed so you can pile on the damage.

Barbarians can also get AoO now in class, and they were the class that most needed it IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Hopefully stay as they are, because 1) Mutagens were not amazing, the onset time made it so they had to be really good to be worth it. Now they can be above and beyond!

Well, they WERE really good once they got going, but the onset times are hella wonky, yeah. That's one of my two big problems with mutagens in the playtest, the other being that you had to keep your mutagens up to date to keep them competitive, and with only 2 free formulas a level that gets pricey quick.

I think the larger problem with the alchemist isn't that it is bad, but that you need a lot of system mastery to make it great. It has a high ceiling but might have the lowest floor, which is part of what PF2 should be avoiding.

Quote:
2) The Alchemist proficiencies don't make them super dangerous, but now a fully invested Mutagenist can lay down some Fighter-tier ass-kicking.

This was actually pretty close to the case in the playtest. A mutagenist could use feats to bypass the onset time of mutagens. That meant that they could make themselves competitive with a specialist at any given thing on the fly. They can gab like a bard, punch like a monk, or sneak like a rogue.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you can give mutagens to your allies, but that would be the only situation where it could get OP. As long as only the alchemist takes them, it would be fine to go to +5 since they're weaker in combat than most classes.

The thing is though that you COULD indeed make mutagens for your allies, which people seem to overlook a lot. So it isn't just that the alchemist can punch like the monk, it is that the he can make the entire party punch like the monk. So they need to make sure the bonus doesn't make the monk double monk, because that would break the math paradigms. Making it so that the mutagens don't work on allies would be a big nerf to the alchemist.

I do agree that in the playtest you sort of needed mutagens to be at your best. Even the bomber worked best when under the effects of a quicksilver mutagen-- it provided +5 item bonus to hit at its highest level, where the best the inherent equipment could provide was a +2 item bonus. And this really didn't feel obvious to new players, meaning you might very well wind up with no item bonus to hit at all.

I have no idea how it will work in the final version. They get expert at the same point casters get it, but we haven't seen anything indicating they get master in bombs. Plus, they probably have to use a secondary stat to hit, unlike all the other classes save gish casters.

One possibility: mutagens could provide proficiency instead of item bonuses. That would keep a similar paradigm as the playtest, where you can make the alchemist or another party member catch up to the specialist without making letting them make the specialist so strong it breaks the game. That would make sense with proficiency now absorbing most of the value that went into item bonuses. It would also make more sense than non-magical mutagens providing the same bonus type as magical items. The mutagen is really just awakening your inner potential.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
I mean, me taking amphetamines (quicksilver mutagen) shouldn't negate/override my enchanted bow. It doesn't make sense that my meth powers only work if I'm holding a plain bow, and the second I pick up a magic one, the power of tweaking goes away... (To elaborate, QSM gives an item bonus to ranged attacks, like shooting with a bow, and a magic bow gives... an item bonus to itself)
The flip side though, as I have pointed out before, is that making alchemical bonuses their own thing would be a downgrade in the long run.
I haven't seen you're previous explanations to why alchemical bonuses should be type item and not type alchemy, but I would assume it's because of the tightened math and having multiple stacking bonuses to shooting a dragon in the face might get a bit messy. If I'm off the mark, please elaborate if you wouldn't mind, but I don't see that much harm in allowing QSM and a +1 bow to stack since QSM is A. temporary an B. has a noticeable downside.

A level appropriate mutagens provides a larger item bonus to hit than a level appropriate weapon. that means that not only will it give a dedicated archer +1 to hit, but it will turn a character without ranged investment (such as a melee rogue) into a character with equal to hit chance.

If mutagens became a status bonus, they wouldn't stack with Inspire Courage or Bless, which is bad for them. If they became their own bonus, then the amount it gives would need to be drastically shrunk. A high level quicksilver mutagen gives a +5 item bonus at the point that your archer can afford a +4 bow, so they can get a net +1 to hit. But there is no way a mutagen would give a +5 alchemical bonuses that stacks. That would be incredibly overpowered. So the alchemical bonus would probably remain at +1 for the entire game, much as Inspire Courage does.

To the dedicated archer, the net effect is the same. But to the character who doesn't have the latest and greatest in bow technology, the mutagen suddenly can't let them catch up. This is especially relevant given the alchemist can outfit the entire party with bombs which otherwise lack an item bonus, meaning they get +5 under the playtest system.

That's the hidden benefit of the way mutagen item bonuses work. You can potentially make your entire party into a specialist of a given thing. Needs everyone to use stealth but only one member bought a cloak of elvenkind? Not only will that person with the cloak get +1, but the entire party will close the gap. Know you're fighting a white Dragon who avoids melee? Give your barbarian a mutagen and some liquid ice. Got group social challenges? Well guess what, now everyone is competitive at that.

I'll note that I have no idea how this will work with the new reduced item bonus progression.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Yeah, I would say it's pretty nonlethal. Think 5e tier? Nobody is gonna die if the party is somewhat competent.

In my estimation, the wounded condition is going to make combat significantly more lethal than 5e, especially with crits taking you to dying 2 out the gate. You can't just yo yo from 0 HP all day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
I mean, me taking amphetamines (quicksilver mutagen) shouldn't negate/override my enchanted bow. It doesn't make sense that my meth powers only work if I'm holding a plain bow, and the second I pick up a magic one, the power of tweaking goes away... (To elaborate, QSM gives an item bonus to ranged attacks, like shooting with a bow, and a magic bow gives... an item bonus to itself)

The flip side though, as I have pointed out before, is that making alchemical bonuses their own thing would be a downgrade in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're looking for the setting specific to the second edition era, Paizo put out a recent series of blog posts on the different regions.

But because of how much of a kitchen sink Golarion is, your players probably just need to learn the region you're gonna be playing in. Nirmathas doesn't have much to do with Varisia, for example.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There are also focus spells which can be renewed between fights. If I was building an arcane trickster and wanted to spam as many spells as possible, I'd probably spend my feats getting focus powers over spell slots. I'm sure some will be blasts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'd say PF2 is about as lethal as PF1 for most of its residents. PCs, however, have Hero Points by default, which makes it less lethal for them specifically.

I've found that my players wind up using their hero points for important skill checks or saving throws over stabilizing. But I suppose if my campaigns felt more dangerous that might change.

I have been using the playtest rules for a year, and haven't lost a PC outside of Doomsday Dawn. Previously, I lost 3 PCs in quick succession in PF1 just before we converted, though that was after like a year of play.

So anecdotally it feels less lethal, and I'd mostly attribute that to moving away from negative hit points.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Also that it’s kinda weird to get 3 powers at once with one Skill Feat (but cat fall doesn’t do this, it scales but in a purely numbers way so it’s just one new ability but more potent to take it at master than trained)

IMO, skill feats kind of need this whether or not it comes from Proficiency scaling, because in the PFPT they were too niche to be wroth taking in isolation. Like, I would never spend a skill feat to crawl faster, or a skill feat to squeeze better, but I might grab a feat that does both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well there's also the one that gives you an extra reagent. Lots was the wrong word to use, I'll admit, but between that and the standard options like giving it language the alchemist doesn't feel lacking in abilities to give to the familiar. And having less Master abilities to pick from does severely reduce the need to expand the number you can pick. Shrug city P.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Voss wrote:

So, adversarial b&+&@@&s it is.

How is this helpful to playing the game?

Tri, really? You've never known it to be helpful to know when a party member isn't penalizing the group with magical status effects? Really?

Like CM says, it's a -1 penalty for 1 round THE FIRST TIME YOUR PARTY SEES YPU WEARING IT IN THE DAY.

That in no way makes a character non-functional, that's just ridiculous hyperbole. It will straight up borderline never actually come into play as a hindrance to the party.

Sorry, but you're the only one delivering adversarial BS here.

Now now, Edge, to be fair. I've played in plenty of parties that very specifically don't look at each other until combat begins, always making sure to stay one room apart in dungeons and a mile or so apart when traveling on the open road, camping at such distances as well. And this will only be exacerbated by a party member wearing an actual blindfold. The rest of the party will probably follow the example of how cool that guy looks and tie normal strips of cloth around their faces, relying on the Dread PC to lead them around until combat begins, at which point they will tear the blindfold from their eyes, and EGADS! Our ally is so scary! I'm startled for the opening round of combat! WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
^ What Vlorax said. I think I'm missing why it's a big deal to be Frightened 1 for 6 seconds (is that right? is a round still 6 seconds?) once a day. I guess if you're ambushed while sleeping, that -1 on a check might come into play when it actually matters.

Even that assumes you sleep with the blindfold on, and even then, it's "the first time they see you in the day." It doesn't say "every time they see you after a nap."

Acting like this is a debuff to your party is absurd. Getting to used to in about a week is really just a flavor thing; it would never be a problem 99% of the time if the party never became immune to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:
Nightfox19 wrote:
The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:


Ah man, I am also running Rise of the Runelords converted to playtest rules and barring my players getting way off track or dying they should beat Xanesha next session. When I was wondering what to do with the mask I had decided to replace it with a Demon Mask, but it still does irk me that it doesn't fit her snake motif as you said. I may just give her the ability to cast flesh to stone once per day though I'm thinking the DC would be 23 since I'm running her stats as using the Night Hag from the bestiary but with different spells, and without some of the night hags abilities.

Pumpkin

Do you happen to have a listing of changes that you made / implemented? Having something to base mine off of as well would help. DC's are probably one thing from the Playtest that will probably need to be done again.

Nightfox

Unfortunately, I don't. I'm kinda old fashioned about stuff like that and any changes I've made I keep writing in a physical notebook. However this thread is a good starting point.

Captain Morgan's backgrounds are great and in my opinion better than the first guys write up. I will say I only used it as a starting point and have changed alot from his original conversion. For example the tentamot in Thistletop they used 2 Chokers while I used an Otyugh. I removed the stench ability and reflavored the filth fever to poison from the Tentamorts sting. I've actually probably changed more than I kept of this conversion to be honest, and I've added and removed enemies as I saw fit once I got to know my party and understood what's usually an easy encounter for them and what's difficult for them. I've tried to keep it mostly balanced though and never tried to add so many creatures as to get a TPK, only to make it just enough to make them sweat a little.

Good call on the Otyugh, I had a similar thought occur to me.

I ran book 2 with challenge ratings mostly as written, and I will say many of the fights were cake walks. Ghouls are just not super threatening to level 5 and 6 characters. I can't imagine a decently optimized PF1 party would have had a harder time, but I didn't get that far in it for PF1. Book 1 seems about the same for actual difficulty so far, IMO.

I also think it is pretty easy to use the monster level adjuster to fit in the appropriate creatures where need be. .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone remember what the final "batch" size for crafting is? I feel like it might have been mentioned but I can't remember where.

The playtest used half batches for advanced alchemy, so you got 2 items for each reagent you spent. It would be cool if that increased. Edit: Yeah, it is still 4 per batch. Nice!

Double edit: Wait, the bomber 5th level field discovery seems to contradict this. "When creating bombs during daily preparations, you can spend one batch of reagents to create any three bombs instead of two of the same bomb." Actually all 3 research fields say something to this effect. What gives?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The other great thing about Mike's suggestion? The part that gives lamias more spells could probably do something like use the actual lamia's (much lower than a flesh to stone item) DC so that the PCs don't get wrecked.

Yup, and treat it ask limited to the max spell level of the lamia so you can counteract it. That's the conclusion we drew!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I really like the about a week bit. About a week makes it feel more organic rather than saying everyone becomes immune to it after exactly 168 hours of exposure. This creates some leeway for the brave barbarian to adjusts a little sooner.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Richard Lowe wrote:

Looks very interesting, another great blog from Mark!

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode? I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time and also that if an encounter begins with conversation and then combat breaks out the effect will likely have worn off making it less than useful. Also, given that you can only see through it using Darkvision... does it make you blind during the day?

In case it's not clear I really do like it, as an old WoW player it brings me visions of Illidans glowing green eyes behind his blindfold and it's a great thematic item that I really want to see in use but... if it's a good example of the prebuilt items with special effects, I'm worried that for Organised Play we'll be starting with having to use the dreaded "table variation" phrase too much and this seems like the perfect time to ensure the language for rules is plain (and yes, I know PF isn't written specifically for PFS but there is an awful lot of PFS and it is effectively the marketing arm of the brand to a large degree so it would really help if things were made as clear as possible within reason).

I very much agree and I am currently playing WOW, and blindfolds are still a thing (also played Nier Automata which had quite the impact), blindfolds and getting darkvision are neat... but frightened 1 is something I am not too keen about.

This will either immediately trigger some encounters the group might have wanted to solve through diplomacy, it actually forces anyone that sees you to make a roll, which could be unpleasant if the group is in a social setting (even more so if only some of those NPCs have stats).

That allies become immune to it is not terrible, but since you are...

Just because something scares you doesn't mean you have to fight it.

1 to 50 of 1,717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>