Gathuspia

Charon Onozuka's page

285 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Currently, I'm planning to redo a lot of my homebrew setting after I've gone through the official PF2 rules (& made Character/GM Sheets).

For general areas/regions - I'm planning to make a masterlist of several rarities specific to that region which I can easily pull from & share with players when starting a new campaign.

For deities in particular, I'm planning to use rarity to help show where they're actually worshiped/known in the setting (my setting currently has 153 deities - though I planning to prune some & rename many of them). Hopefully this will make my very large list much more manageable.

For races & classes, I'm not particularly a fan of making players feel too restricted in their selections of these unless they're very specific to an area (such as Samurai not being in a medieval Europe-style region). As such, I'm planning to allow players to pick uncommon races/classes without needing GM permission - instead stating that picking an uncommon option here means that NPCs will react, often negatively, to the character if they are aware of their race/class. The player can try to hide this if possible (tiefling covering inhuman features, Witch pretending to be a bard/eccentric wizard) but there are consequences if they are revealed (such as certain areas making witchcraft a burnable offence). Basically using the tag here to preemptively warn the player that while they can pick these options - doing so can come back to bite them and they should be prepared/expecting such.

For spells, I'm planning to bump certain categories (long-distance teleportation, resurrection) straight up to rare to signify next to no one has access to them within the setting, and the ones who do aren't sharing for various reasons (Resurrection in particular damages an already fragile & pieced together afterlife system in my setting).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Part of me hopes that we get it early enough for some of the really talented folks in our community to create their own sheets, and give players options.

Wouldn't count myself as part of the "really talented folks," but for online players I'll be working on updating my Playtest google sheet for characters once I've had a chance to go through the final official published rules. Can't guarantee any speed, but I hope to have it in a presentable state at least within a month after release.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I'm not completely opposed to CHA being connected to languages, I fail to see it influencing Charisma as an influential stat simply because the Comprehend Languages spell exists, and can be heightened to include the ability to speak the language. With basic wands becoming 1/day scrolls, you simply grab a wand if you expect a lot of socializing with foreigners (or a scroll if you don't) and the group can go back to ignoring Charisma without noticing a meaningful difference. So outside the first 2-4 levels, languages become a non-issue unless you're also houseruling that spell.

The overcharge idea is more interesting in my opinion... but I dislike the ideas behind the mechanic in the first place and don't foresee it being used enough (unless the item price is set too low) to make a higher Charisma score much more appealing.

Personally, I'm similar to Porridge in that I currently see hero points as one of the best areas to make a houserule which makes Charisma more valuable to everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If bonus to hit is exclusively for magic weapons again, then what effect does item quality have on weapons? Please don't tell me it's like the playtest were it is just a tax to be able to slap more magic on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I hope the Witch ends up being the prepared caster for this school of magic, it'd be a very appropriate fit.
I don't think it would particularly fit the thematics of the Pathfinder witch, personally. I'm pulling for witches as the prepared sorcerer, with their spell list based on their patron.
For the record, I strongly disagree. Witches suit the Occult list almost perfectly both thematically and mechanically. They need a way to get Baleful Polymorph and a handful of other off-list spells, but you can make those Hexes/Class Feats or the like pretty easily.

While Witches would thematically suit occult magic, it'd also cut off a lot of the thematic origins of the class in my opinion (which is why I support them as a prepared switch caster).

Witches often have myths connected to making pacts with demons/devils (divine) including at least 2 archetypes in PF1 (Demon-Sworn & Pact Witch).
Witches often have myths connected to fey/nature (primal).
Witches often have connections to hags (arcane in playtest) and even dragons via the Wyrmwitch archetype in PF1 (arcane).

So considering they seem to have legitimate thematic ties to every type of magic - it'd probably be best to allow them to be like sorcerers and gain their type of magic based on which patron is helping provide the witch's magic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for this!

Happy to see multiclass stat requirements get lowered to 14 rather than 16.
Also love that the stupid 1/day class abilities seem to have been removed.

That being said, the Alchemist multiclass in particular brings up something I was kinda worried about with some classes having class pools in addition to spell point pools, being what happens with the multiclass dedication. Something like a Cleric/Alchemist can easily have 3 pools to worry about (channel, focus, reagents) and I was rather hoping that spell points/focus was going to get rid of things like that by consolidating these pools into one feature. [Especially as a Roll20 player who only has 3 bars per token to track these pools, along tracking HP and possibly things like hero points]


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to complain about wands again... I hate 1/day items in general (annoying to track, limited, use limit is meant to feel powerful/special - but can't be too powerful or people want to wait a day after using) and I hate items which are basically "Item X but better+more expensive" so naturally I hate what I'm hearing about basic wands (special wands might be okay, but I'd rather only have wands be special rather than basic ones just being multi-use scrolls).

Pricing in particular seems to be something I'm worried about. They say scrolls are way cheaper, but how expensive will a wand actually be? After all, a wand can't be too expensive or players will, A) complain about their expensive toy got permanently destroyed & B) create wealth issues within the party if one player's wand is destroyed and their equipment value is now significantly lower than the rest of the party. On the other hand, if wands aren't expensive enough, then they're just a pure upgrade to scrolls. This seems like it leaves a narrow range to actually get the pricing right, especially once the community starts crunching numbers after the release. What I'm most worried about seeing is one option becoming objectively better in 90% of common situations due to how much mechanical overlap there is with price/use(s) being the only difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure wands will be more expensive, but if they basically give you an extra spell a day compared to a single use scroll, I know my players will almost always save up for the wand version and pretend that scrolls don't exist. After all, potentially infinite-use is always more cost-effective in the long run.

My point is that there is still too much overlap with scrolls in this variation, except wands seem to just be better (& likely more expensive). If PF1 wands were basically 50-use scrolls, then the basic PF2 wands are 1/day scrolls with the possibility of extra features. At which point I question what the point of scrolls are.

I'd rather just throw out basic wands being daily scrolls and only make wands with other more advanced features.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

Wands. Cast a spell once/day. No level cap. Can try to cast additional times/day but risk destroying the wand. This also opens up design space for special wands. (Factoid: around 75% of survey respondents didn't care about keeping stick-of-spells style wands.)

Honestly, that'd still feel like a spell-on-a-stick to me. It's just less spammable unless you risk breaking it, which doesn't seem particularly interesting. Not to mention it basically kills scrolls, since why would you want a consumable spell item when you can get a 1/day spell item that functions the same way? (& considering I already hate tracking various 1/day abilities, having multiple wands will just be incredibly annoying.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Another thing I'd like to see, maybe based on a reworked kineticist, is a class with a straight-up stance system. Some abilities having modified effects based on current stance or are only available in a given stance, with maybe feats that allow them to transition from one stance to another more fluidly than a monk.

I feel I'd prefer to see stances made more accessible/fluid to monks/fighters rather than shifting them off to another class. In the playtest, I know that my biggest issue with stance feats was that players saw it being more optimal to put all their feats/resources into making one stance as effective as possible and then never changing stances or taking other stances unless they were prerequisites.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 for a Magical Girl class.

Also, how about a Ritualist class? Now that magical rituals are part of the core rules, I think there is a good opportunity to have a class (or even just an archetype) based on using longer rituals as opposed to standard magic.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

See, my biggest issue with that is when Aasimar/Tiefling/Planetouched get printed, they'd have a list of the currently existing ancestries to choose parentage from. Later on, when more ancestries got printed, it is highly likely that they'll forget/neglect to go backwards and errata those options back into the planetouched parental options with appropriate bonuses like the others.

I know in the playtest surveys they brought up ideas like having Centaurs, Minotaurs, or Pixies being added as ancestries. Personally, I think it'd be awesome to play as a Tiefling Minotaur, Aasimar Centaur, or a Sylph Pixie, but if those races got printed after planetouched then it'd be unlikely to be possible if planetouched already used an established list to pick parentage from.

This is also part of the reason I highly support the idea of various planetouched being an open heritage capable of being selected by any ancestry. Even if something like Centaurs get printed long afterward, they'd still be able to seamlessly select the open planetouched heritage without relying on publishers to remember that planetouched exist and specifically creating new options for every planetouched related to the new ancestry in order to make such combinations possible.

Also, specifically for the way BoHR handled Changelings there... While I certainly like the intent, the bonuses given by several of the races on that list are very inadequate to actually feel like a member of that race. For example, Kitsune parentage completely lacks change shape or anything related to foxes, none of the small races make the Changeling small or adjust land speed, etc. I'd personally hate it if planetouched ended up with similar issues as a result of using this type of option in order to connect with their parental heritage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading more of this thread, I'm starting to like the idea of Aasimar/Tiefling as their own ancestry, since they already have a diverse set of heritages that are difficult to express otherwise. That said, I still think I'd prefer them being an open heritage that any ancestry could select, with different bloodlines either being separate heritages or something similar to dedication feats within the heritage (once you pick an ancestry feat specific to a bloodline, you're locked out of ones from other bloodlines).

Of course, there is always the option to do both in a way, allowing players to either start with the ancestry as a base or apply it as a heritage to another ancestry (kinda like current multiclassing).

Additionally, I'm also starting to think that having half-elves & half-orcs as heritages is a bit backwards. What we really need is a half-human heritage that can be selected by any ancestry. After all, "sleeps with everything" is supposed to be the specialty of humans, so why not use heritage as a way to express that?

Canewolfconram wrote:
What do you of a heritage feature similar to what was done for changelings with paternal heritage in Book of heroic races: advanced compendium including one for human heritage but for planetouched for nonplanetouched heritage

Very late with this reply, but do you mean to allow aasimar/tiefling to select their parent humanoid race to count as?

Selecting a parent humanoid wouldn't be bad, but without their actual racial features it can often feel like you're actually just playing a human-half with a different skin. While the selection could give some partial features of the race by selecting off a list, my problem with such a list of options within an option is future-proofing. As more content gets released, it's very likely that someone will forget to go back and errata the selection to include those new options within it.

That said, it could be a good solution if it was applied to a heritage feat, having you select which bloodline your aasimar/tiefling origin was from as part of taking the heritage. Unlike ancestries, the variant aasimar/tielfling heritages seemed to be created all at once and not have further additions in later books, helping with the issue of future-proofing. It'd also force the character to decide what type of part-outsider they were instead of aasimar being "some good-aligned outsider" and tiefling being "some evil-aligned outsider."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I support the idea of modular heritages, especially if they include their own set of ancestry feats that can be taken. (And preferably a bit of a background/setting write up.)

That being said, it might be tricky to differentiate between different aasimar/tiefling types with such a system (unless each was its own heritage & all could qualify for the same general ancestry feats).

And while I can somewhat understand the argument of "why can't my half-X also be part planetouched," there has to be a limit somewhere. No matter what is done mechanically, there will always be some combinations that won't be able to work unless you just allow players to be part-everything (i.e. Aasimar/Tiefling or Sylph/Tiefling won't be possible if they use the same system to add to another race). On a thematic side, I'm pretty okay with the idea that you can't make a half-human, half-elf, half-planetouched, etc. While mixed races are fun, it gets a bit ridiculous when you're mixing more than two separate things together.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cavalier: Split into 3 archetypes; Mount archetype, Order archetype, and Tactician archetype. While the Playtest archetype was a step in the right direction in my opinion, I dislike how dedicating yourself to an order or being able to challenge people is still tied to being a mounted character rather than being part of separate archetypes.

Inquisitor: While I surprisingly loved the class in PF1, I don’t think there’s much space for it in PF2. Thematically, I think it’d probably do better as a class path for Clerics (or even Champions) rather than a separate class. Mechanically, Oracle will cover the spontaneous divine caster role, which I don’t think needs to be doubled up on. As for their other features, most could be incorporated into other classes, with only Judgement really being especially unique.

Magus: Archetype for sure. With four magical traditions, an archetype would allow the Magus to easily attach to any of them instead of being restricted to arcane. Gish is awesome, and being an archetype would allow the Magus concept to expand while also reducing the need for things like Hexblade or Eldritch Scion to mix with other classes.

Oracle: Class. Too thematic with their curses and fits nicely into the niche of spontaneous divine caster. Granted, Revelations seem likely to just become variations of class paths now, so Oracles might need a little more added to their chassis in my opinion.

Shifter: Never really played or had much interest in this class. Could potentially be an archetype based around polymorphing magic, but would probably be better as just being absorbed into Druid/Shaman.

Summoner: While I personally hated the class in PF1, I’d say it has good enough theming to be a full class on its own. Personally, I’d reimagine summoners as a class based on using rituals instead of casting spells, with some powers/spell points for limited magical effects. I don’t think there’s much room to make Summoners a caster class (unless they covered spontaneous arcane, where I’d probably prefer something else), especially considering a casting Summoner should really just be a conjuration specialist Wizard. But rituals seem like a good system they could focus on using, especially since it doesn’t have to tie them to a specific magical tradition by default and could open up class paths based on different types of Summoners (with Occult path making them resemble Spiritualists from PF1).

Vigilante: Archetype. Applying vigilante type abilities to existing classes through an archetype seems a much better solution than needing a dozen vigilante archetypes to mimic other classes like in PF1. Also allows for more variation in a vigilante-themed campaign.

Witch: Class. Very thematic with their patrons and hexes, and could fit as a switch prepared caster based on their patron. I don't think that occult prepared fully works for them, as patron choices like being a witch devoted to nature/fae (primal) or making a deal with a devil (divine) don't match up as well if the class is limited to occult. Like Sorcerers, their magic is closely linked to some variable "other" (bloodline, patron) which should determine what type of magic they have, and hopefully have other large impacts on how the class is played. (Personally, I liked the idea of Patrons having some type of goals and imposing some sort of price for their magic – from a third party book on witch patrons for PF1.)

Alternate Classes: Antipaladin & Ninja can just be absorbed into Champions & Rouges respectively while the Samurai gets absorbed into the various Cavalier archetypes.

Hybrid Classes: Arcanists, Bloodragers, Brawlers, Hunters, Skalds, Slayers, Swashbucklers, and Warpriests can all be absorbed back into their parent classes in my opinion. Possibly have them become class paths like how the Warpriest seems to be under the Cleric last I heard.

Investigator: I think there is just enough theming for Investigators to serve as their own class, as long as they are divorced from the Alchemist and reimagined a bit to become their own thing. They also seem like a decent option to possibly absorb some of the abilities from Inquisitors and Vigilantes (disguises, detection, tracking, etc.).

Shaman: Also could be reimagined into a new class, likely filling the spontaneous primal caster role. It’d need to drop the hexes/witch aspect, but that’d leave more room to focus on the class’s connection to spirits / spirit animals. I could also see the class absorbing features from Hunters (Animal Focus) or even Mediums/Spiritualists.

Occult Classes: Outside of the ever-popular Kineticist and the ones I’ve already mentioned, I don’t have too much experience/opinions about these classes. That said, I think they’re in a weird spot since psychic magic is gone and the closest equivalent in PF2 would be occult magic. So outside of a prepared occult caster, I’m not sure there’s too much room for many of them.

Kineticist: Going to be unpopular here and say I’m not sure if this class needs a return. While I loved them in PF1, I always found them a bit awkward thematically when compared to the rest of the setting and their main mechanical stick (always on elemental blasts) seems less impressive with scaling cantrips being a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "low cha" is going to be less of an issue automatically in PF2 if we stick with the stat generating system we have. Since the reason 7 (or 5) cha characters were so common in PF1 is less "I want to RP someone who's hard to like" and more "it gets me 4 extra points I can put towards other stuff."

If Starfinder is any indication having a 8-12 charisma is not the end of the world in terms of "this character is okay at talking (I mean, Shirren get a +2 on Culture and Diplomacy out of the gate, and they're the core ancestry with a cha penalty.)

While I agree that low stat characters are likely to be less of an issue, I still have a problem with Charisma remaining as the one stat which has no mechanical value for the majority of characters. Especially if its one use of "okay at talking" isn't a big penalty for not boosting it like you say.

I mean, when you hit levels that give you ability boosts, what motivation is there to select Charisma if it isn't your casting stat? With Resonance going away, there really isn't any unless something like Focus replaces it. Even the other two "weaker" stats have some use for people. Intelligence boosts several skills and total number of trained skills, while Strength boosts damage, carrying capacity, adventuring skills, and defence against combat maneuvers targeting Athletics DC. Charisma on the other hand boosts talking skills... until you just have someone else in the party do all the talking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many thanks for this thread! I'd miss this kind of juicy info if it wasn't for people making these types of threads, and I appreciate it greatly.

Meraki wrote:
"Focus spells" is kind of a weird term for me; I feel like it might lead to confusion among players without classes that get actual spells ("wait, I thought I didn't have spells."). I actually liked powers better, but oh well.

I admit to similar feelings about this, except I worry that having the explicit name of "spells" will simply prevent martial classes from gaining focus spells as part of their class. Which would be a shame, since I quite like the idea and ease of use of some type of universal "class pool" rather than multiple fiddly pools with different names that basically act the same (*glares at channel energy*).

Doktor Weasel wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

My feeling is that not all stats should be equally relevant, but a class that dumps a particular stat should play different and have different options than a class that keeps that stat high, in the way that a high-Strength wizard has melee options that a Strength-dump wizard doesn't.

I would like to avoid the PF1e issue where there is sometimes no meaningful reason NOT to dump a stat. Dumping a stat should be a choice, not an assumption.

True, it should be a choice. But is requiring Charisma for Focus Spells really a choice? To me, if feels like it's more of a case where by not focusing on charisma, you're crippling yourself.

Unless Powers/Focus Spells gain a massive power boost from the playtest, you could easily play a character with low Charisma that never really uses Focus Spells and it would hardly be crippling. It might influence how you'd want to build/play, but I highly doubt that it will become mandatory.

In my opinion, solving PF1's issue with Charisma really necessitates that the stat is tied to some mechanic other than just a handful of skills and spontaneous casting. Every other stat had this (some more than others), and part of the reason Charisma was the go to dump stat for the majority of characters was partially because it had next to no impact on anything as long as someone else in the party could talk to NPCs. It wasn't just people making a choice to dump it, but the stat having very little value on its own.


Good to hear you got it working!

To be fair, thusfar in the playtest scenarios I primarily only used the current date section to mark the year and didn't really use it further - as information about exact dates didn't seem to really be provided or influence anything.

The intention of the section was primarily for longer homebrew campaigns to help keep track of things like months and seasons that occured with the passage of time. Previously, I've found that games without a good way to track time typically ended up as neverending spring days with perfect weather as a default, until the party decided to rest or the GM/Plot determined that weather/seasons needed to exist somewhere.

In my own games, I admit I've only recently started to get better at tracking the passage of time within a day, and feel that it has helped improved the immersion. Specifically, I was overjoyed in Part 2 when I got to inform the party that the sun was beginning to set after everything they'd done in the day and it forced them to make a choice about their return journey. Do they continue travelling until nightfall and risk camping in known enemy territory? Do they pull a late night and travel in darkness at the risk of light sources announcing their presence and location? Or do they camp in a safe location to continue tomorrow at the risk of giving the rival group a chance to catch up to them? Suddenly time mattered within the game world, and the party decided to camp in safety and sneak down the next day rather than risk an unexpected Manticore encounter at night. After that, the players became more interested in asking what the rough time of day was after doing lengthy activities (such as multiple 10 min Treat Wounds) and became a bit more invested in the game world as a result.

So overall, part of my hopes with that area of the GM Sheet was to improve the ability of the GM to more easily track things related to time - especially daylight, seasons, and weather (with a forecast chart on the Environment tab) in order to make the game world feel a bit more immersive. Not to mention that I hope to eventually have events within my homebrew setting related to calendar dates, and would need a way to keep track of how long it is until they might occur. With all that being said, these areas of the GM Sheet are very much a 1st draft, so I am more than open to any comments about how they could be improved in the future if you have any ideas or past experience from your own games. (Especially since you are right in that manually tracking the current date could be a pain & there would probably be value in a section just to mark the start date of a campaign.)


Captain Morgan wrote:

So my GM sheet is 1.6.1 currently, and my players are probably using various older versions of your character sheet, not sure which.

Can you explain to me like I'm a five year old how to import my information into your newest version and get those fancy new spell functions? Thanks!

Alrighty, so the easiest method would likely be to just replace the Party tab with the newest version and then copy over any additional info like NPCs/Notes which doesn't get imported from the character sheet urls. Afterwards, you'd have to place one formula in another tab and it should be good. This will get you the new tracking features without having to copy any info from the other tabs.

So first, open up the newest version of the GM Sheet and go to the Party tab at the bottom. Click the down arrow on the Party tab to open up a list of options. Since you do not own the sheet, the only selectable option will be "Copy to..." Select that option to open up a window to select your existing GM Sheet within your google drive. Alternately, on that pop-up window you can post a link to your existing GM Sheet in the box near the bottom where it says, "Or paste a web address here:"

After copying the Party tab into your existing sheet, it will appear as a tab called "Copy of Party" to the far right of your existing tabs. You'll probably have to scroll right to find it, but once you do you can click, hold, and drag the tab to the left until it is adjacent to your current Party tab. Copy the Player urls, and then any data that doesn't autofill from the original tab into the new copy. Ignore the Spell Repertoire section for now. At this point, you can delete the original Party tab and rename the "Copy of Party" tab to become your new default. Don't worry about the players using older character sheets, as the new skill formulas are made to check the sheet version number and apply the appropriate formula regardless of which version of the character sheet is used.

Finally, open the EXP tab on your existing GM Sheet. Copy the formula in the spoiler below into cell AW5 (immediately to the right of the "EXP until next Level" box). Depending on how many spells your party has, this will likely extend the tab a bit and be somewhat unsightly. To clean it up, select column AW5 and change the text color to white (the same as the background) to effectively hide the messy text.

Formula for cell AW5 in EXP tab:

={
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!F8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"");

IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!K8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"");

IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!P8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"");

IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!U8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"");

IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!Z8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"");

IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!D16:D25")="Name"))),"");
IFERROR(UNIQUE(FILTER(
IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100"),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")=""),
Not(IMPORTRANGE(Party!AE8,"Spellcasting!H29:H100")="Name"))),"")
}

After this is all done, go back to the Party tab and the Spell Repertoire section should now be filled in from your player's character sheets! (Or blank if they have no spells) Note: Currently spells with different capitalizations or a space at the end may end up counting as different spells for the Unique function. I still need to look into if there is a good way to make them counted as the same to prevent unneeded repeats.

If for some reason this doesn't work, feel free to post any more questions. In the worst case scenario, you can potentially PM an edit link to your GM Sheet and I'll try to see if I can find out what needs to be done to help (& promise not to mess anything up for you).


Looking forward for the final game. While the adventure may have been a test, it was also one of my group's first experiences with running an official-style adventure path (as opposed to homebrew) - so we ended up having a lot of fun with it overall. As a result, we're expecting to play the parts we skipped over the next few months just for the experience of it.


Just finished submitting the last of my surveys! I saved all the non-Doomsday Dawn surveys to the end, so I've been chugging through them to get them all in on time.

Been nagging my players to finish and submit their surveys, so hopefully they'll get in on time as well.

It's been a hectic period trying to prepare sessions when I arguably should have be doing other things, but it's been a fun ride and both my group and I are looking forward to seeing how PF2 turns out. We'll probably be finishing the remaining parts of Doomsday Dawn at a slower pace, just for fun and to see how things turn out. So thanks for everything you've done thus far, and good luck for all your work in the coming year.


Much understanding, as I know I've burned myself out a bit trying to wrap things up before the survey period ends. Granted, I do want to warn that people (including paizo) shouldn't be viewing things as set in stone based on survey results when the survey period isn't done yet. I'm sure there are many groups (*cough* mine) who have put many of the surveys off until they got as much actual playtesting in as possible, so I'd expect a large influx of data to be pouring in right about now as the deadline approaches.

Other than that, I'm similar in how my checking of the forums will likely be slowing down. I am still personally hoping that we get some more interesting blog posts once the survey period is fully over, so I'll still be keeping an eye on that while my group runs some of the Playtest parts we had to skip for time concerns.

See you all more when the final draft of 2E is upon us. Cheers.


I'll admit I haven't seen my group use recall knowledge much in the Playtest thus far, but then again, I didn't really see them use it much in PF1 either. They seem to have gotten used to the strategy that hitting the thing is effective 98% of the time anyway, so why bother with the details.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For all this discussion about wanting PF1.5 and saying that the 2E can't compete with D&D5e, I want to say that one of my players actually flat out told me that if they had to choose between PF1, 5E, and the current Playtest, they'd pick the Playtest without a doubt.

With all the complaints about things in the Playtest, it has already solved a ton of nagging issues my group had with PF1 and has been received fairly well. And rather than seeing blasts spells dominating, buffs/debuffs, save or suck, and terrain effects have had a great impact on battles so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering this is a thread asking about stories that can't be told in the playtest - It doesn't really matter if something works at a different level than before or takes more resources if it can still be done.

For example, 17th level wizards can no longer cast Wish along with their other 9th level spells. This does not prevent stories involving the Wish spell, it just moves them to being something that needs a 20th level Wizard with a feat to perform. The story can still be told, even if the details around it changed.


Merry Holidays, everyone! Still gotta finish up some surveys as my present to paizo, but it's been good run and I know my group has certainly been appreciative of all the work that's been put into the playtest thusfar. Looking forward to see what you've got in store for us in the year to come!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
in◆⃟ wrote:
But over the past two months, there has been very little feedback from the designers, either on blogs, or on the boards. The most we see is Jason Bulmahn locking threads.

Because the playtest is winding down, they're trying to avoid contaminating the last bit of survey collection by releasing too much info on what is being worked on and/or considered at the moment. Once the survey period is fully over, they'll likely be getting back to more regular blogs and be more open discussing what is being looked at in more detail.

For the moment, silence is partially expected as they've been working quite a bit on trying to keep the playtest running smoothly, need rest, and don't want to accidently bias the data they're planning to rely on when shaping the final draft of 2E.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. This is a playTEST. A large emphasis was put on generating data for the devs, to the point that they often picked the most extreme version of possible rules to see how they would impact play. The final version of 2E is guaranteed to be very different from the playtest in many ways as a result, and the devs have already started to leak tidbits of things they are working on as a result of playtest data.

2. Half-Elf & Half-Orc were always a mixture of existing races rather than a full one on their own. By moving them into heritages, it opens up possibilities for other half-races later on & for things like aasimar and tieflings to have a non-human base (which PF1 said was possible, but didn't have a good way to represent).

3. The new action system is very simple at its base. You get 3 actions + 1 reaction per turn, and free actions when appropriate. This is meant to drastically reduce the complexity of action types from PF1 (Move, Standard, Full, 1-round, Swift, Immediate, AoO, etc.) with unique rules for each. It also means less inconsistency with how action rules work (Standard can be downgraded for a 2nd Move, but Move cannot be downgraded for a 2nd Swift). Overall, my group has viewed this as feeling very "streamlined" in actual play.

4. Four degrees of success works with crits now being applied at +/-10 of the DC. Overall, this opens up possibilities of great success/failure to other parts of the system, keeps rules of different areas consistent, and really helps out save-or-die spells feeling useful without either doing nothing or ending a fight.


soulhunter80 wrote:
Does anyone know if these or any other changes will be implemented before the final product? My group will be finishing up Doomsday Dawn tonight (finally), and my wife plans to GM the PF2 society scenarios next month. Just wondering if we should hold off knowing there are official rules updates coming or maybe just add this stuff on the fly to try it out?

Highly doubtful. Some of these changes affect too many things and would require reprinting half the Playtest to implement prior to release. That just isn't practical to do at this point, and it'd be a far better use of their time to just focus on the final edition while giving us occasional teasers about what is going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

5- Add more flavor

The final book all abilities will have more flavor. Like how the wizard will have a "Thesis" that he get to chose the name and everything.

Expected, but still love to hear it. Hoping the wizard's change will come with specialty schools actually feeling like specialists. (Specialty Wizard during char creation for Part 7, "I kinda regret not going Universalist.")

Dante Doom wrote:

3- GM Resources

DC table was simplified (just one line for level and another for DC's). Conditions were reviewed. Some were split, some grouped.
There is a new condtion called "Doomed". It lowers the death threshold by the amount (Ex Doomed 2 you will be DEAD if you get do Dying 2)

I actually kinda like the DC table easily being able to scan left to right for difficulty within a level. So not sure I'm enthusiastic about this change. Conditions were never an issue in my group due to my custom char sheet handling it for everyone, but it'll be interesting to see how they turn out.

Dante Doom wrote:

2- Ressonance

Completly gone... Yeah that's righ... No more ressonance whatsoever! Even the Focus rework didn't did well.
(Some items will be changed to reflect this, like wands not beeing a spell in a branch)

None? Here's hoping whatever replacement for resonance is still better than the old body slots. My players were so happy to hear they could easily have all 5 variations of the rings of energy resistance on a character without running into slot issues or crippling their use of other magic items. Also hoping that there will still be a way for Charisma to be a useful stat for all characters, because I do not want to go back to the idea that everyone who isn't a face/CHA-caster leaves Charisma at the lowest value possible with no effect.

Also, long overdue with the wands change. I've always said I'd rather just remove them completely rather than leave them as multi-use scrolls. If they can't carve out a unique niche for themselves, then they shouldn't exist.

Dante Doom wrote:

1- Proficiency rework (HUGE)

The data showed that proficiency was a cool system, but the difference between levels was very low.
Ok so now we have:

Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!
Trained: LVL + 2
Expert: LVL + 4
Master: LVL + 6
Legendary: LVL + 8

Cautious about this. Hopefully it means that items bonuses will be less of a thing and proficiency will take over that niche. Also slightly concerned about how it'll work with the +/-10 critical system, since I actually like that system better than nat 1's or 20's.

I'm also very concerned about this talk of 95% success rates. While success rates seem a bit low at the moment, I dislike anything becoming next to guaranteed by default, especially with time-sensitive checks or in combat. I don't think this should be easily possible without taking advantage of situational modifiers like conditions, flanking, etc. or else all of those situational modifiers become meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts on Powers/Spell Points:

Name:
While I don't really like "Ability Points," I agree that we need a different name for Spell Points. Something magically-neutral so that martial classes don't have any issues with using the same type of pool when/if we get things like inspiration/grit/panache/etc. I believe the resonance test tried to use "Focus" as a sort of combination between spell points and resonance item-boosting, but I don't think that worked out very well since they tried to mix it with another concept that wasn't great on its own (item-boosting).

Multiple Pools:
Please, please no. I was under the impression that spell points were supposed to help with the dozen different class pools from PF1. Right now, I already have an issue with us having channel energy, infused reagents, and wild shape all as separate pools outside of spell points. Heck, universalist wizards even have a pseudo-pool with drain arcane focus for each spell level that you'll have to track in play. Not only does this seem to stray from the intended purpose, but is guaranteed to become a huge mess with multiclassing and new classes adding more individual pools later. I already worry about what'll happen when the alchemist multiclass dedication gets updated, since I have players interested in the idea of a cleric/alchemist that will then will have to deal with 3 seperate class pools all on one character (spell points, channel energy, infused reagents). In my opinion, we really just need one standardized type of "class pool" (spell points, focus, whatever) that any type of class (martial/magic) can potentially gain for limited-use daily abilities linked to that class. If you multiclass, everything is then already set up to take from this one standardized pool.

Power Level:
Right now, powers seem to be treated as niche side-abilities rather than anything substantial. I'm of the impression that most powers need a serious buff to become something that actually entices you to play one class over another (the distinction between cleric/divine sorcerer feels lacking when both domains & bloodlines are near meaningless to distinguish the class). Additionally, a power increase is needed to roll things like channel energy and wild shape into spell points, since otherwise these abilities will render all existing powers meaningless. Ideally, I am of the belief that powers should be substantial enough so that even characters of the same class with different power paths should feel significantly different from each other.


Captain Morgan wrote:
I couldn't quite get the spell importing to work, but this is still a god send.

Hmm... After doing a fews tests of my own, I think this is the result of the import function not playing nice with tabs hidden by default after copying. If you open the hidden sheet, double click cell A1, and then hit enter, it should "wake up" the formula and cause it to work again even after re-hiding the sheet.

To help fix this, I've changed how the formula works in v1.7.1 and made the referenced cells hidden on the EXP tab (white text on white background) rather than on a hidden sheet. In the future, I could combine the formulas into just a single cell in the Spell Repertoire section, but for now I want to keep them seperate and easier to adjust while I see if I can make a few edits to improve the section further.

-----

Additionally, while attempting to fix this I also made a few small edits to the Party Tracking section with formatting/organization and added a Resistances section along with a section for Spell DCs (by spellcasting tradition). Hopefully this makes it a bit easier to use in play while adding more relevant info for the GM. And of course, all new sections import automatically from linked sheets.

If anyone chooses to just copy the new Party tab into an older version of the sheet, then you'll want to copy the formula in cell AW5 on the EXP tab into the same spot on the older sheet to ensure that the new Spell Repertoire section works properly. You can then set the text color of column AW on the EXP tab to white to hide the unsorted information you don't need to see.


Thanks for the info Mark. My group is currently planning a double session the weekend before the New Year to see if we can crank out Part 7, but I'm not confident we'll finish in time (been taking an average of 3 session per part for us). Still want to contribute what I can, especially since the character creation session alone provided a few things I want to provide as feedback in the open survey.


@shroudb My comment was based on Tezmick's remarks towards the rarity system as a whole, something which I've seen a bit too much recently and felt necessary to respond to. It was not a comment about the specifics of mutagens being uncommon.

On that topic, I personally feel like this is the result of paizo still feeling out exactly how the alchemist class should be in PF2. They've already significantly changed the class during the playtest and I would not be surprised if the final draft ended up significantly different yet again. It's the class they've probably messed with most since 1E (completely divorcing it from magic) and they likely have more plans regarding it that they can't mention yet while the playtest surveys are still up.

Also, I'd disagree that mutagens are the core of the class. Alchemical items are the core of the class, with that being something which can be expressed in various ways. Even in PF1, some characters didn't care to use mutagens (or bombs) or even traded them away as part of an archetype.

Regarding the current implementation of mutagens in the Playtest, I could see room for a class feat that got non-mutagenic alchemists access to mutagens with a pair of formula, but not the other benefits of the mutagenist reserach field (similar to how druid feats related to their wild order work).

Also, right now mutagens seem to be in an odd place, partially because the alchemist was changed mid-way into the playtest. Making mutagens common or changing their bonus to a stacking bonus would suddenly have all classes eyeing them for potential minmaxing, which is clearly not the intent from what was originally an alchemist class feature. Additionally, there was talk of making some of the existing item bonuses (particularly from magic armor/weapons) more innate to a character's progression - which would also necessitate changing exactly how the current write up of mutagens work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they want while the GM isn't allowed to say anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Teleportation Casting Time means no escape button. Teleport and Shadow Walk both have 10 minute casting times. Lots of reoccurring villains only become reoccurring because they teleport away before they get killed. Currently the only viable option I've seen for that is 5th level Dimension Door with it's one mile range. perhaps followed by an actual teleportation if the party can't track you down for 10 minutes, but that frankly is just a level of mechanical complexity I can't imagine being fun to figure out.

I'm not really sure why this change was made. Teleportation seems to have two big problems AFAIK. Bypassing travel and facilitating scry and fry tactics. I don't see how increasing the casting time solves either of these issues. What it does is make it harder for people to flee, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining it was too easy to avoid fleeing what would otherwise be a TPK. This also makes Dimensional Anchor worse if fewer people will be able to use teleportation effects in combat anyway.

Dimension Door being the only eject button (at least for several levels) CAN work if you assume those NPCs just used that, I suppose. But I have some flavor aversion to giving Dimension Door to creatures with the Nightmare template that Shadow Walked away from battles now are using this other spell. And it also doesn't let you bring any other creatures with you, which really limits the ability for a caster to bring a beloved minion or boss, or for parties to use it to flee.

Personally, I'm fine with 5th level Dimension Door being the new "escape button." While it may not allow an entire party to escape, this also gives the players a sense of accomplishment where even if the BBG uses it to escape, they can still take out his "beloved minion" who couldn't be brought along. After all, it is incredibly annoying for a recurring villain to keep just escaping because of a single spell. As for party fleeing, it really removes any tension when you know you always have a "get out of jail free" card resting in your back pocket, so I don't mind that gone either.

With a mile range on the 5th level Dimension Door, it's still a really effective escape as anything without 55ft+ move speed and a straight line isn't going to have a chance to catch up to you, even if you follow up with a 10min casting spell like teleport. And speaking of teleport... I'd honestly be okay if it went all the way and turned into a ritual. Maybe not as long as current rituals requiring downtime, but still a bigger time cost than a normal spell for being able to do things like move between planets at higher levels.

The Archive wrote:
Aside from that... spell durations are ultimately going to mess with both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore for both sides, and some spells just don't last long enough to do what they did in PF1.

I keep seeing these types of comments, but I have a hard time believing them. How many buffs do you need for it to count as "pre-buffing?" Because I just finished running one of the Doomsday Dawn sections, and the written opportunity for pre-buffing had one of the enemies with a total of 5 separate buffs prior to the start of battle (with all the others having 2-3 buffs). Those buffs certainly had a large impact on the fight, and I even forgot to run one of them properly because I had a hard time tracking them all with everything else going on. So I really don't see how pre-buffing "isn't a thing anymore" just because you can't stack them as easily or have them with long durations.


While I haven't run into sex in my games (& admittedly haven't read the entire thread), I do remember seeing a kickstarter that got funded for "The Book of Passion" which seems like it'd be another third-party book that'd be about what you're looking for. I'm not sure about it's current status of completion, but it might be something to look up / keep an eye on.


Neutral_Lich wrote:
players are not supposed to always agree, a party where everyone agrees on the most optimal choices is metagamey as f+~* and not interesting in the slightest in fact they are not supposed to know i'm a necromancer until i decided to reveal it except its gonna be hard to keep it a secret on 2e with his ritual b@%#+%@+

Wait... are you keeping this a secret from the other characters or their players? Because a secret like this can be an engaging roleplay when other characters don't know, but can be a dick move if their players don't know and it directly causes inter-party conflict to the point that they can't work together anymore the moment it is revealed. Smaller secrets can be fun to reveal to players, but game-changing/party-destroying secrets like this really need to be known to everyone at a meta-level, even if their characters are in the dark about it.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
BUT STOP HARD CODING THE RULES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ONLY BE EVIL IN A EVIL PARTY WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE GM

Evil characters always could work with non-evil parties... within reason. If I bring my Antipaladin of Genocide into a party full of Paladins and good Clerics as part of a quest to retrieve the holy grail, things are probably not going to work out. On the other hand my evil assassin can work in a campaign where the party needs their services, even if the good cleric is trying to pull a redemption arc on them to justify why they stay together.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard regarding character creation in a TRPG is to always remember that this is a group game. The loner-archetype can work in other fictional mediums where a single author has full control over the events and party dynamics, but easily falls apart in a medium where multiple authors (GM+Players) craft the story and don't all have reasons to justify why they're still working with that uncooperative loner. And it is not their responsibility to find a reason to stay together when your character is busy providing reasons that they shouldn't. No matter what character you are making, as long as you're playing in a group, they need to be able to play nice with others.

This doesn't mean the character necessarily has to enjoy being social and cooperative, but they need to have a reason why they're doing it anyway (& not rely of everyone else making that reason). One of my best received characters at a table was actually an antisocial, cynical deadpan snarker who constantly muttered insults towards the rest of the party under their breath (“Group of Weirdos”, “Midget”, “Religious Nut”, etc.) and was evil-aligned in their vigilante identity (while being neutral in their social identity). This worked primarily for three reasons:

1) Prior to making the character, I already knew the story would have our characters assigned together through no choice of their own - so regardless of my character's feelings, she had to make the best of the situation she was in (story provided reason to not go loner).
2) While the character didn't enjoy being part of the group, she never shied away from contributing the best she could for their benefit, went out of her way to help solve things for them even when she disagreed, and avoided doing anything that would cause a party-split.
3) Her biggest secrets (human-looking tiefling & vigilante identity) were known at a meta-player level by everyone at the table even though their characters agreed to remain oblivious.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:


You're literally the one assuming that rules that don't exist yet are bad. Yes, there is a possibility that things might go the way you fear. There's an equally valid option that they might go the way others are saying. And frankly, being argumentative and dismissive of others' ideas (which calling it a "b!@@~*+% argument" and "cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism" is straight up being argumentative and dismissive) isn't likely to sway the devs towards your preferences.

we have exactly zero reason to assume that it will not be a multi person ritual. All the examples we have require huge skill investment by multiple people to work, and have not been playtested or surveyed about so we have to assume that the massive barrier to entry is standard.

We also have the rules text stating that: "Many rituals require additional secondary casters; like the primary caster, secondary casters do not need to be a member of a spellcasting class." This seems to imply that while the currently printed rituals in the rulebook all have secondary casters, that it not mandatory for them and there will be future rituals which do not. And in fact, the rituals in the bestiary don't have secondary casters (though they are currently written for monsters).

And again, remember that we are still in a Playtest where none of the rules are finalized yet. It is fine to argue that we need to expand options for more rituals to be performed by a single individual (I'd actually agree), but it does no one any good to just assume how the future will be and use that as the basis for saying everything is horrible.


Ediwir wrote:

I remember a feedback question about whether 1 action to retrieve items from a pouch and 2 actions to retrieve something from a backpack was too much, too little, or just right.

Tbh I wouldn't be opposed to a limited amount of items being stowed in a scroll case or belt pouch or potion belt and let players take those as free actions. Get that MMO 3-item quickbar.

If that happened, I image every character being covered in belt pouches like a 90s comic book character just so they can have everything available as a free action.

Honestly I like the current system, as it is consistent with other actions, like drawing weapons, and makes it so that things like scrolls actually take some time to use rather than just being paid bonus spells added to a caster's daily prep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

Complex?

Are you joking?

I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.

Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D

This is less about IQ and more about ease of use.

Especially considering "I can to that math easily" is not the same as "Everyone can do that math easily late at night near the end of a long session after a busy day at work." The less complicated the most basic math at the heart of the game is, the easier it is to play and run, especially when everyone isn't exactly at their best.

Not to mention that dice+mod works consistently when compared with the rest of the system, as opposed to one subsystem using multiple modifiers along with double and triple modifiers.


Crexis wrote:
If a character needs healing but has no resonance left, can a player 'feed' him the potion so it costs that player 1 resonance but not the person downing/drinking the potion - even if the character is at 1+ HP and conscious?

Alchemists can make an infused potion (only lasts 24hrs) which doesn't cost resonance for anyone to drink.

Otherwise, for the purpose of the Playtest rules, no. The separate resonance test rules made it so that items had some effect without resonance and got boosted by it instead, but those haven't made it into the Playtest rules and are highly likely to get changed again prior to release due to the lackluster response of that test.


It seems to me that taking an item out of an easily accessible location (belt pouch, sheath, scroll case, etc) takes an Interact action, while taking it from a less accessible location (backpack) takes 2 Interact actions.

Playtest p174 wrote:
Drawing or changing how you’re carrying an item usually requires an Interact action (dropping items instead uses the Drop action).

So you wouldn't have enough to attack (1), retrieve item (1), and cast the spell (2) all in one round (unless you had Haste for the attack).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I admit to having some similar worries. Ignoring hard-to-balance features like flying, there are many mythological races which have something innately magical or special about them as a defining feature of the race. Kitsune are natural shapeshifters, a Vishkanya's bodily fluids are poisonous, Merfolk can breath and swim in water, etc. These aren't things limited to a single heritage - and it'd be nice to see them included in a way that isn't imbalanced.

Right now, the only way I could see this being done is by having the race replace either the choice of heritage or 1st level ancestry feat with the default racial feature. It wouldn't be great from the view of letting player's make choices, but it's currenlty the only real way to allow an innate special feature without instantly imbalancing the race against core options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Update 1.7.0 - no rules change

I'm highlighting this update as in addition to several improvements to the sheet, the skills section has been shifted slightly, which will break imports for GM's using older versions of my GM Sheet. If your GM is using an older version of my GM Sheet, make sure they read this post regarding the update.

---

Notable updates since my last post:

  • The temp bonus column under skills has been replaced with a section to record conditional bonuses to skill uses.
  • The damage calculation for Companion Creatures has been fixed (previously used main tab's STR instead of its own).
  • The Equipment tab has been expanded and reformatted, with each section gaining a description, section bulk calculation, and box to record how much capacity is available for the section. This is meant to make it easier to keep track of items like the Bag of Holding which have a limited capacity to hold other items.
  • Added a column under Spellcasting to record the heightened level of prepared spells.


  • Update 1.7.0 - no rules change

    With update 1.7.0 of my character sheet, any GM's relying on the import function of the GM Sheet to fill in skills under the Party Tracker will need to update their Party tab on the GM Sheet if any of their players use the new Character Sheet. If you do not want to transfer your entire GM Sheet to a new one, you can click the arrow next to the Party tab on the new sheet, select "Copy to...", and then select your existing GM Sheet. This will make a copy of the tab into your existing sheet which can be used to replace the original Party tab.

    -----

    Regarding additional updates to the sheet, the Spell Repertoire section on the party tab now automatically imports all spells from linked character sheets, deletes duplicate spells, arranges them alphabetically, and lists which characters know each spell. Note that this uses a hidden sheet called "SpellRep" to function, so please do not delete the hidden sheet.

    Other minor updates can be viewed in the Changelog on the sheet.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Not a fan of widespread access to Dex damage. I believe that every stat needs a solid purpose in the game and that there should be a trade-off for raising any one stat above another. Dexterity already has a large number of benefits attached to it boosting AC, reflex saves, ranged attacks, finesse weapon attacks, etc. On the other hand, Strength boosts your carrying capacity (until you get a bag of holding), melee attacks, and damage. If Dexterity gains the ability to do everything Strength can, then what is the point of having Strength as a stat?

    Right now I'd say that Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom are all in a good place as they are attached to multiple important features that all characters want. They don't need to get even more added to them. Strength is okay as long as it's damage niche doesn't have other stats start replacing it. Intelligence and Charisma seem to be the two that need work, as other than casters who absolutely need them, many characters can ignore them with little impact (especially depending on how resonance changes in the future).


    12 people marked this as a favorite.

    Even before the Occult books introduced rituals to Pathfinder, I've always wanted to see them in the game. They're just such an iconic part of magical fantasy that it feels lacking if they aren't somewhere in the rules. I mean, what's an evil cultist supposed to do if they're not able to prepare to attempt some risky and grand ritual? That said, I still think they need work along with some lower level/shorter duration rituals. (Heck, I've always interpreted the hour long spell preparation in the morning as basically a flexible ritual for spellcasters to pre-set complex magic for quicker completion when needed later in the day.)

    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    It would be my personal preference that every spell which is not castable in six seconds and has no direct application to "someone is trying to stab you" situations be recontextualized as a ritual.

    Effectively this would solve most of the caster/martial disparity in terms of "narrative power" since it would mean skills govern everything out of combat.

    While I'd probably agree that some more spells could be converted into rituals, especially any which take longer than 1 round to cast, I really don't want to see all spells become combat-only. For me, that'd take part of the magic out of magic.

    My personal preference for changes to rituals would be:

  • Remove the rarity restriction in that they always must be uncommon or greater. That's fine as a baseline for higher level or grander rituals, but it really limits design space.
  • Remove the downtime-only restriction. Again, appropriate for bigger rituals, but prevents the design of any type of "minor" ritual. With the addition of Treat Wounds and the expectation of a roughly 10 min "break" between combats, there is a good design space available for minor 10min rituals that can be performed by a single character while others are treating wounds or identifying items.
  • Add more interesting costs rather than just things that can easily be translated into a gp value. Part of the appeal of big rituals is needing to locate hard-to-find materials or set up during a certain time (full-moon, eclipse, etc.) to even attempt it in the first place.
  • Add some type of common cantrip-esque level 0 rituals, the type of stuff a wizard-in-training would learn prior to mastering 1st level spells.
  • Add costs to purchase the common-rarity minor rituals so that characters can have some expectation to be able to reliably access the system. Again, uncommon+ is fine for the big rituals, but if everything is uncommon+ then many groups will never even try rituals in the first place.


  • thflame wrote:
    Then there is the absolute illogical garbage that comes with not having AoOs standard. Like ignoring the boss's mooks that are supposed to be guarding him, because they can't take AoOs. (Except for the rare occasion that they have fighter levels or the feat, then the PCs just feel cheated.)

    Mooks can still ready actions if they want to stay near the target they're guarding and want to attack things that get too close. Not to mention that PCs shouldn't feel cheated if mooks specifically meant to be guards took options that make them better at guarding... Of course people are going to take options that make them better at their primary purpose.

    And honestly... even in PF1 it wasn't that hard to just walk a bit around the mooks to avoid AoOs and then ignore them until the boss was dead. Outside of chokepoint situations, weak guards really had difficulty contributing outside of setting up flanking for the boss just because they had difficulty actually hitting (which will be even more difficult in PF2 due to level adding to AC).

    thflame wrote:
    Charon Onozuka wrote:
    Also, in regards to the simultaneous vs. sequential turn argument... The argument for sequential combat only seems to make sense when you limit it to 2 fighters opposing each other. Considering that most parties have about 4 people and the enemy can easily be of similar number, what is everyone else doing during a sequential turn order? Just standing there and watching the 2 who are currently swinging at each other? Unless combat is simultaneous, then you have this weird RPG dynamic were everyone is patiently waiting for the previous half dozen people to finish before taking their actions. Especially considering that not everyone is necessarily engaged in melee or otherwise distracted at the same time.
    When it's one vs many, yes, it does break down. But if you assume it all happens simultaneously, there is STILL issues. I'd rather have 4v1s not make perfect sense, than have no combat make sense.

    My issue with that is that Pathfinder is a group game. 1v1s are rather rare as a result, so making a set of rules that encapsulates 1v1 combat at the expense of group immersion seems nonsensical to me.

    thflame wrote:

    I should be more clear on what exactly should cause you to provoke an AoO.

    If you aren't currently occupying your attacker with something that disincentivises attacking, you should provoke and AoO.

    Just having a shield out doesn't stop the opponent from attacking you. You still get to defend yourself (you still have an AC they have to roll against), but they can totally swing at you. You don't have a weapon on line or threatening a swing, so the enemy has no fear to being punished if they swing their sword, and thus, they get an opportunity attack.

    Wait... are you suggesting that spending an action to raise a shield should provoke from every enemy adjacent to you? Or that if I attack only one enemy out of multiple adjacent ones, then all of the rest should get AoOs since I'm not occupying them? And how does that work if my buddy is adjacent to me while multiple enemies surround both of us? Do I still get an AoO on me if my buddy just attacked them? Or do I have to keep track of everyone that every other player attacked in the last round to try to make sure enemies stay 'occupied' to not receive an AoO?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Wow, I didn't realize that AoOs were such a sacred cow to some people. Myself, I like that they're no longer default, as it helps solve issues I had with how static combat in PF1 felt. In PF1, players had a habit of moving into position and then standing still until either them or the enemy was dead. Now, it is a lot easier for both allies and enemies to move around the battlefield and actually simulate a more dynamic battle (as in, how many movies have you seen where everyone is standing still in a fight?) Not to mention that an enemy which pulls out an AoO by surprise now has the ability to instantly force the players to adjust their tactics on the fly, which makes combat much more engaging in my opinion.

    Also, in regards to the simultaneous vs. sequential turn argument... The argument for sequential combat only seems to make sense when you limit it to 2 fighters opposing each other. Considering that most parties have about 4 people and the enemy can easily be of similar number, what is everyone else doing during a sequential turn order? Just standing there and watching the 2 who are currently swinging at each other? Unless combat is simultaneous, then you have this weird RPG dynamic were everyone is patiently waiting for the previous half dozen people to finish before taking their actions. Especially considering that not everyone is necessarily engaged in melee or otherwise distracted at the same time.

    Not to mention that sequential turns seems like it would mess up with a lot of timing. Since a round as a whole is 6 seconds worth of time, does that mean sequential turns are dividing this up between all participants? In which case, an average turn would be less than a second worth of time, during which even a dwarf can move 60ft or make three attacks...

    Alternatively, if turns are now 6 seconds rather than rounds, then the standing around and waiting thing only becomes more ridiculous for people not directly engaged in the melee. An archer who can shoot thrice in six seconds then has to wait half a minute or more before their next set of shots. Not to mention that 1 minute magic durations would pass within 10 turns of combat rather than 10 rounds, which would be less than 2 rounds on average.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Not knowing about monster reactions sounds like something solved easily enough by clarifying that you can learn about it with a recall knowledge check. If your party doesn't invest in any knowledge and responds to every threat with the same run forward + hit tactic, then yes they should be surprised when an enemy pulls out a reaction that messes with their tactic. But if they actually make a check to learn about what they're fighting, then it should be easy enough to remember that the creature has a reaction known for catching enemies off-guard if they're not careful.

    1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>