Charon Onozuka's page

316 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 3 wishlists.


1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Frogliacci wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Where does it say that divine magic only comes from deities?
In Golarion, the only beings who can choose to grant divine power, rather than pass it down involuntarily through genetics, are deities. Note that my comment already take demigods into account when I said "deities".

Again... where does it say this? I do not see such in the deity section and under magic traditions it says this.

Divine Tradition wrote:
The power of the divine is steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane. Clerics are the most iconic divine spellcasters, beseeching the gods to grant them their magic. Divine sorcerers can use the blood of their celestial or fiendish ancestors as a divine conduit, and champions call upon their gods to grant them martial prowess through divine guidance.

Things like Angels/Daemons/Demons/Devils seem to perfectly fit the definition's criteria - which is probably why they became divine casters in PF2 (even though my initial gut reaction was something more like Daemon:Primal, Demon:Arcane, and Devil:Divine - I can see how this makes sense with how it is defined). Maybe there's something else in the rules that would say only deities grant divine magic - but I'd really like to see the text saying that before just accepting such an assertion.


Frogliacci wrote:
I would also be pretty disappointed if infernal contracts are a witch patron rather than a class-agnostic option, like rituals. I shouldn't have to multiclass witch to play a fighter who sold his soul to be the best swordsman alive. In fact, witch wouldn't even make sense.

I'd agree with the first part, but add that I don't want to see something like deity-worship be restricted to Cleric/Champions either. However, what I'd love to see to help this would be something like feats/archetypes (possibly return of Divine Weapon Techniques/Deific Obediences please) to make deity benefits more accessible to any class. For Patrons, I'd argue the same thing. Have a class dedicated around them as a major feature with a smaller archetype/feats for other characters which touch on the concept without it being their central theme is something that would be fine with me.

As for the second part, how does a Witch not make sense for infernal contracts!? There are multiple historical events basically based on this idea - so it would be a tremendous shame in calling a class "Witch" if such a concept couldn't be done at base without requiring a half-dozen feats to do so...


Frogliacci wrote:
That's only 1e witch, where patrons are ill-defined forces of nature and metaphysics. 2e witch patrons will be tangible beings, which makes me think that witches will have anathema, just like druids and clerics.
Frogliacci wrote:
By overlap, I mean that all arcane/divine/primal witch concepts can ALREADY BE PLAYED by being a wizard/cleric/druid, barring the infernal contract idea (but I also have other desires for how that's implemented, see above). Occult witches meanwhile fill a specific niche that can't be represented by any other class or class combination in the game.

I'd agree that Witches are likely to gain anathema, but think that the idea of rebelling against your patron is such a powerful concept (& one that can't really be done by something like a Cleric) that I would hope the class includes some possibility of doing so (even though they'll probably suffer hardships as a result when their patron isn't happy with it).

I'd disagree that Witch is just as easily played by other classes - especially since I expect the Patron feature to be giving the class something unique like how it is done with deities, bloodlines, etc. Not to mention you say a druid could worship certain powerful themed entities - but that is like saying any class could worship a deity. Technically it is true, but that doesn't make it redundant to have a class focused around and more tightly linked to that concept (like Clerics with deities compared to more lay worshiping characters).


Frogliacci wrote:
We have a similar problem with draconic sorcerer already. A green dragon sorcerer can't cast entangle, a spell like ability shared by all green dragons, without being crossblooded. Silver and gold dragon sorcerers can't cast divine spells at all despite their ancestors having them. Instead of future proofing the class like that, I'd personally want to see feats and archetypes that address these issues independent of class.

Personally, I'd say that's a problem of trying to squeeze all true dragons (a highly diverse species that will likely end up touching on every spell tradition) into a single bloodline which will only get worse when some of the other true dragon types return. Luckily, the nature of bloodlines is such that it wouldn't be too hard to make a new bloodline option which included a better representation for a specific dragon type or add variation into the existing bloodline depending on the dragon type selected (like PF1's implementation of expanded draconic bloodlines).

My issue with your solution of using feats is that the idea of fixing everything with more feats means you'll eventually start needing to spend multiple of your limited feats just to reach a concept which should've been possible at base (your bloodline representing the creature you draw heritage from in your example).


Frogliacci wrote:
Besides, I think if we're ever getting a prepared-any class, I hope it would be the shaman. The 1e witch felt way too similar to the shaman already, which in turn makes the shaman one of the thematically weakest classes.

I'd agree the Shaman is among one of the thematically weakest classes (similar to Arcanists and other hybrids). But I'd argue that retheming the Shaman as a spontaneous primal caster would be a better option to connect with the themes implied by the word "Shaman."

Frogliacci wrote:
I didn't say occult, I just said prepare-any. If we NEED a prepared-any analog to sorcerer, the shaman's whole thing with directly borrowing power from spirits (which could really be anything...outsiders? nature spirits? dead people? who knows!) can be represented by the spells being whatever tradition the spirits themselves use. Wandering spirit would also grant a handful of spells from another tradition.

I'd take this argument and say that Patrons are more thematically broad than Spirits, and thus a better choice for for a prepared-any option. Patrons can easily be oddball things, with one of my favorite third party books in PF1 giving the Witch weird patron options like a hivemind, mafia dragon, and a cursed efreeti offloading his curse's requirement to grant wishes by making Witches who could do it for him (but still being a prick, would screw with wishes made in good nature of for the Witch's own benefit).


Frogliacci wrote:
Considering that bards are occult, I'm not worried about stereotyping. Are bards also cackling evil hags?
Mechagamera wrote:
I admit that a wide variety of patrons is an assumption (one I feel good about but still an assumption). It all depends on what is the most important part of being a witch. If it creepiness, then no need to go farther than the occult.

This is exactly my worry with making the Witch occult-only, that the focus of the entire class will be based on "being creepy" and ignoring many of the other concepts related to their stories/myths. Bards do not have a stereotype of being cartoonishly evil/creepy, Witches do - which is why I have such a worry. I want to see a Witch class that is able to handle the diversity of myths related to the word "Witch." Naturally, this includes things Witches being a product of a devil and/or drawing magic from nature and herbs in addition to Witches being related to occult entities.


Tender Tendrils wrote:
Its about the reason for making the decision. The point is that the choice shouldn't be made just to fill a box, and you shouldn't just keep adding classes just to fill those boxes. The decision should be "I have an interesting and fun class concept, what tradition and method of spellcasting best fits that concept and helps to develop its distinctive identity".

Personally, I look at these boxes in the opposite way. Rather than trying to just fill boxes, we're trying to filter down some concepts to prevent a bloat of very similar casters by provide a checkbox limit (1 spontaneous & 1 prepared of every tradition + a select-a-tradition).

I think we can all agree that the game doesn't really need to have a half-dozen arcane casting classes - and this sort of checkbox limit helps imagine what should be most deserving of the missing spots.

For my person opinion, it'd be:
Prepared Any: Witch
Spontaneous Arcane: ?
Spontaneous Divine: Oracle
Spontaneous Primal: Shaman (large rework)
Prepared Occult: Psychic (or something new / blend of several psychic classes)

Frogliacci wrote:
In Golarion, the only beings capable of granting divine magic are deities, so divine patrons would have to be, by definition, deities. So what's the thematic difference between a witch who made a pact with a deity for divine magic, and a cleric who serves a deity for divine magic? I can't really see any concept you can achieve with a divine witch that you can't already with a cleric, especially since the fluff makes very little distinction between worshippers of a full god and those of demigods like empyreal lords and archfiends.

Where does it say that divine magic only comes from deities? The only description I can see in PF2 close to that would be, "The power of the divine is steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane." This is not limited to deities, and I'm pretty sure that PF1 had ways for Clerics to worship Demon Lords and other beings like them to get granted divine magic. This is especially notable considering PF2 has made it explicit that all Demons/Devils are using the Divine Tradition for their spells.

Looking back at PF1, the Witch class had several options for connecting them to divine sources that weren't deities. Some examples would be Celestial Agenda (patron), Demon-Sworn (archetype), Infernal Contract (Patron), and Pact Witch (archetype). These connect well with some common Witch stories in fiction with them some gaining powers from contracts with an average evil outsider (demon,devil,etc), without requiring that they're specifically contracting with a demigod/deity level being.

The difference between worship + contract also means that a Witch could have a storyline were they hope to use the power they gained to turn against their patron and break the contract (possibly in an effort to save their soul). This is particularly notable since worship isn't generally done unwillingly, while contracts can easily be made under duress or while being tricked. Unlike Clerics, the Witch class didn't have language saying they lost access to their magic/abilities if they don't follow their patron's wishes - which I've always taken to imply that a Patron grants magic/knowledge as a sort of permanent thing, after which is not easily taken back (often because learned knowledge doesn't disappear if you stop teaching). To contrast, deities seem to have an ongoing connection with worship that can easily be revoked if one side or the other breaks that connection.

Side Note:
Personally, something I've long been planning to set up in my own setting is having a popular witch hunting book (secretly) be written by a devil. Instead of giving information to destroy Witches, it actually helps create them. A ritual is hidden within the torture methods to allow the devil to make a contract with the innocent victim to "save" them by granting them magic. By the time the new Witch realizes they've been tricked, they're already stuck in a bad deal without an easy way out.

Frogliacci wrote:
Primal patrons would need to be some form of nature spirit, like elementals or fey lords, and paying reverence to these beings in exchange for power is the the druid's niche.

I've never seen anything implying that Druids are expected to revere specific beings in exchange for power. Generally they always seen to be portrayed as respecting nature as a whole. So there really isn't much thematic overlap here.

Looking back at PF1, the Witch class had patrons like the Fey Gifts patron which was described as, "A powerful fey or other entity has offered you magic. You serve as an anchor and scrying focus in the Material Plane for your patron, but you also provide frequent amusement." It also had the Green Whipers patron described as, "Your witch powers are bestowed by a representative of natural forces, such as an ancient treant or nature spirit, who expects you to wield such gifts on its behalf." The class also had plenty of spells, hexes, and general patrons which seemed to go along with the primal theme.

Frogliacci wrote:
The biggest issue I see with giving the witch patron-dependent spell traditions is that it would make witches overlap too much with other spellcasters in terms of lore.

Personally, I see the Witch as the best choice for being a pick-a-list prepared caster since like the Sorcerer - their power originates from a distinct and highly variable "other" element (bloodline/patron) which they have limited control over. As long as enough emphasis is put on Patrons and their pact/contract, I don't think the Witch having an overlapping spell list will make them overlap too much with other casters.

Plus, common stories of witches include Witches who could be Divine (tricked into contract with a devil), Primal (drawing power from nature), or Occult (drawing power form mysterious/forbidden elements beyond common understanding). Arcane is probably the weakest connection to make, partially because it has the least specific theming (imo), but even then PF1 had things like the WyrmWitch being connected to dragons (& at least Chromatic/Metallic Dragons are arcane casters).


Overall, part of the reason I really prefer to push for the Witch to have patron dependent spell traditions is because I worry about future-proofing content & limiting the theme.

For future-proofing. Say a really thematic demon-related spell gets added. It'd probably be added to the divine spell list (since that's what demons cast from). A Demon-blooded Sorcerer would instantly have access to this, but an occult-based Witch with a demon patron wouldn't be able to cast it since it was on the wrong list and any patron-related bonus spells were already decided before the new spell came out.

For the theme, one complaint I saw in PF1 was that too much theming was spent on the sort of stereotypical evil fairy tale Witch while not giving enough options for others types of Witches in tales/myths/etc. If the PF2 Witch becomes strictly Occult, I kinda worry that themes related to the Primal/Divine side of Witch stories will get muted/ignored in the class mechanics in favor of this stereotype.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


  • Prepared Switch Caster based on Patron. While Occult tradition works for some Witch concepts - it doesn't really fit things like a witch who communes with nature/fey (Primal) or is tricked into witchcraft by a Devil (Divine), which are things I really want to be able to express.
  • More mechanical/thematic relevance for Patrons. Despite being one of the coolest thematic class features in PF1 (in my opinion) - Patrons being nothing more than a single word description + set of spells didn't make for a very exciting feature. I've always wanted them to have a bit more impact on the Character & hope this is a chance for paizo to do exactly that.
  • Hexes in some format. While the swiss-army knife utility of Evil Eye made it my favorite hex in PF1, I'm actually not too particular how they turn out in PF2. Expecting they end up like cantrips (similar to bard), but could also see some focus power as well. I just hope it's not all focus powers, since that'd feel really limited as a result.
  • Familiars being more closely tied to Patrons, including the ability for some Patrons using items/objects rather than a traditional animal familiar.

  • Deity Worship archetype. Allow any class to gain some mechanical benefits from a deity without having to multiclass Cleric or Champion. Even better if this comes with the return of something like Deific Obediences/Boons and/or Divine Fighting Techniques from PF1 which would make the archetype appealing to Clerics/Champions as well.

    Demon/Daemon/Devil Worshiper archetype(s). Something to contrast divine worship and bring back the evil-themed Obediences.

    Magical Element archetypes. Allow casters to thematically focus on using a single element while giving benefit/thematic abilities for doing so.

    Magical School archetypes. Allow non-wizard casters to focus on a single magical school and/or school wizards to double down for even more thematic abilities related to their chosen school.

    Magical Tattoo archetype. Let anyone gain limited magical effects for tattooing magic onto their skin. Because magical tattoos are cool and no longer have to break the item slot restrictions.

    Magus archetype. Allow casters of any tradition to mix their magic into weapon attacks. Maybe include a few basic magical attacks so you could start as a martial and still benefit from the archetype.

    Mount-based archetype similar to PF1's Cavalier/Samurai. Get bonuses for mounted combat without needing to deal with orders or teamwork feats. Could also be a way to allow an animal companion to get the mount trait.

    Order-based archetype similar to PF1's Cavalier/Samurai. Get bonuses/theme for pledging to an order without needing to invest into mounted combat or teamwork feats. Edicts/Anathema would work great for representing different orders.

    Ritual-based archetype. Might need to get more rituals in the game first (& some common ones), but an archetype based on making you better at performing them sounds cool.

    Vigilante-style archetype. Makes more sense for this to be an archetype rather than having vigilante's require a dozen archetypes to mimic other classes.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Draco18s wrote:
    Temperans wrote:
    The 4th level version effectively let's you skip all the math, and moving around for the highest level item.
    Then why does the spell not say that you can "spend 10 minutes" (or however long) and get the same effect?

    Because the spell is describing what you get with a single casting of an instantaneous effect. It would be a waste of book space to have to elaborate on every impact of repeatedly casting the same spell multiple times. Not to mention that the spell couldn't specify a length of time when it would be highly variable based on situation. Narrowing down a magic item in a room filled with hundreds of scrolls will take longer than narrowing down a magic item in a room with only 12 weapons on a rack.

    For comparison, Create Water says it creates 2 gallons of water that evaporate after 1 day. Would you say that repeated castings of Create Water fail to do anything because 2 gallons of water were already created and the spell only says you get 2 gallons? Of course not, each casting of the spell is its own effect.

    For contrast, the Light Cantrip has to include specific wording to prevent overlapping effects, or else nothing would prevent a character from creating multiple light sources to get a greater radius of bright light than what the spell specifies.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    The ShadowShackleton wrote:
    Ubertron_X wrote:
    Having DM only be "precise" from 7th level onward is a bad design decision which is making life unnecessarily annoying for low level chars, which have to rely on triangulation tactics or overly meticulous searches. And while read aura may certainly help you identify items as magic you first need to have a basic idea which items to scan.
    Surely by searching most players are finding the loot anyway? Why are folks so upset about it not being automatic with a spell that costs nothing to cast?

    Some people are probably upset because default expectations have changed since 1E. In 1E, Detect Magic gave the location of every magic aura in a room after just three rounds and also allowed checks to gain even more information. Looting essentially became a non-issue after a certain point, since any loot worth carrying would be magical and it'd take less than a minute to locate and grab everything you wanted in an area.

    2E on the other hand has not only rebalanced magic within the setting, but seems to have more focus on certain options/activities actually taking time to accomplish (see exploration mode, treat wounds, focus, etc.), rather than a single common spell instantly solving the issue and invalidating any mundane options (like searching by hand). So instead of saying the group finds everything valuable in a room after 18 seconds - the group would have to say they spend X minutes/hours searching in order to find everything while giving the mundane folk time to do something else in the meantime or help out in other ways.

    Personally, I kinda like this since it helps make time actually have an impact within the game when you have to spend it as a resource in order to get certain things done.

    Ubertron_X wrote:
    Having DM only be "precise" from 7th level onward is a bad design decision which is making life unnecessarily annoying for low level chars, which have to rely on triangulation tactics or overly meticulous searches. And while read aura may certainly help you identify items as magic you first need to have a basic idea which items to scan.

    I'd disagree that it's a bad design decision, rather it is simply one that creates a different expectation within the setting. Also, I'd note that detect magic never becomes a precise sense in 2E, only becoming imprecise when heightened as a 4th level spell. So while you'd be able to narrow down a magic aura to a 5ft cube, you might still have to do a bit of searching if you're trying to find a small magic item among various mundane items within that 5ft cube.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    From what I've seen, it seems like the game has mostly done away with opposed roles, with initiative being the primary exception.

    If the groups are using stealth for initiative when transitioning from exploration mode to encounter mode, that would imply that they are using the "Avoid Notice" exploration tactic, which says:

    Avoid Notice (p479) wrote:
    ...If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

    So while your Stealth check in initiative would determine the order of actions in encounter mode, noticing an opponent would still be based off of check result vs. DC as normal. If your stealth beats their Perception DC, they don't notice you. Alternatively if your stealth rolls lower than their Perception DC, they do notice you.

    This would mean that in situation #2, winning initiative with Perception vs Stealth wouldn't automatically mean you notice the creature rolling stealth. The opposed roll only determines character order in encounter mode. For exploration tactics, Avoid Notice explicitly says that the stealth roll is compared to Perception DCs to determine if you are noticed. On the other side, no exploration tactic seems to allow you to make a perception check against a sneaking foe's Stealth DC. The closest would be Search, but that seems to specify you only get a search check against objects or hazards.

    Search (p480) wrote:
    You Seek meticulously for hidden doors, concealed hazards, and so on. You can usually make an educated guess as to which locations are best to check and move at half speed, but if you want to be thorough and guarantee you checked everything, you need to travel at a Speed of no more than 300 feet per minute, or 150 feet per minute to ensure you check everything before you walk into it. You can always move more slowly while Searching to cover the area more thoroughly, and the Expeditious Search feat increases these maximum Speeds. If you come across a secret door, item, or hazard while Searching, the GM will attempt a free secret check to Seek to see if you notice the hidden object or hazard. In locations with many objects to search, you have to stop and spend significantly longer to search thoroughly.

    As a result, winning initiative with Perception in situation #2 could give you the first chance to act in encounter mode - but if their Stealth roll was higher than your Perception DC, you'd spend the first round failing to notice anything going on and essentially waste your good roll (which could also potentially allow the sneaking character to avoid the encounter by just letting the other character walk by).

    For situation #4, I'd believe you are correct in saying that two groups could roll stealth as initiative only to find that they both rolled too well for either to be spotted. If you wanted to nitpick, encounter mode could have technically started when initiative was rolled, but then ended before the first round could start. Since neither group could notice the other, it would count as "some other event of circumstance" ending encounter mode and returning to exploration mode, as per the following rules.

    "Encounter Mode (p468) wrote:

    Step 4: End the Encounter

    When your foes are defeated, some sort of truce is reached, or some other event or circumstance ends the combat, the encounter is over. You and the other participants no longer follow the initiative order, and a more free-form style of play resumes, with the game typically moving into exploration mode. Sometimes at the end of an encounter, the GM will award Experience Points to the party or you’ll find treasure to divvy up.

    Personally, in-game I'd simplify this and just consider the initiative roll off as essentially being an "event" occurring during exploration mode. Since neither group noticed the other, encounter mode would never fully start and exploration mode would just continue as normal.

    As for your player's argument... I'd ask him to point to where in the rules encounter mode says anything about noticing something. The only real difference between the modes is how closely the GM+Players are tracking the passage of time in relation to what the PCs/NPCs are doing. Encounter mode isn't just for combat, but rather for any situation where time needs to be tracked on a round-by-round basis.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Descriptions of failed attempts to reverse-engineer effects from magical items into working spells/metamagic that could be cast.

    Attempts to recreate lost/uncommon magic off of little more than vague descriptions about what they could do.

    Attempts to recreate divine/occult/primal spells as arcane spells.

    Spell Research done as part of preparing to learn their next level of spells.

    Paranoid worries about other wizards trying to steal research & what could be done to prevent it.

    Complaints about how older wizards are so full of themselves and haven't kept up with the times.

    Complaints about how society could start accepting those "dirty goblins" as actual people instead of vermin.

    Dismissal about how Bardic magic can't be considered "real" magic.

    Complaints about how younger wizards are so undisciplined nowadays and don't know how lucky they are.

    Plans to neuter familiar after a certain "incident."

    Half-written thesis on how their Arcane School is objectively the superior option for any wizard.

    Grumbling over how they should have been a Universalist instead of picking an Arcane School.

    Paranoid delusions about all the forces out to get them, both real and imagined.

    Angsty notes about how no one understands them or recognizes how obviously superior their viewpoints are compared to everyone else.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pandora's wrote:
    If they have a workable algorithm and there is no reason they can't use it, why not just go ahead and tell them they succeed without the song and dance? The important part of the Detect Magic changes is that such an algorithm takes much more time so it's not viable in combat/under time pressure the way it was and that illusions aren't automatically seen through. Just saying "you take the next couple minutes to determine these two items are magical" seems like it should work great.

    I'd agree along these lines. If players want to thoroughly spam Detect Magic while rearranging the room they're in, just decide how long it takes them to do so in-game and treat it like an exploration mode section.

    Personally, I'd start by saying it takes a default of 10 min (standard short break time) as long as there is more than just a few objects in the area so that non-searching characters could have a chance to do something else if they wanted. Depending on how many magic items there are and/or how many other objects the group may have to sort through - this could easily be increased to hours if the group is determined to find everything magical before moving on. Don't waste game time dwelling on it, but make it clear that in-game time is moving and the rest of the world did't stop because they did (only so many hours in a day before PCs need sleep after all).

    Rysky wrote:
    Downtime Mode is measured in days, not hours. And it’s for when you’re somewhere safe, not when you finish traveling in Exploration Mode for the day.


    Downtime wrote:
    In downtime, you can sum up the important events of a whole day with just one roll. Use this mode when the characters return home or otherwise aren’t adventuring. Usually, downtime is a few minutes at the start of a session or a break between major chapters of an adventure. As with exploration, you might punctuate downtime with roleplaying or encounters when it’s natural to do so.

    I'm pretty sure part of downtime being measured in days was to simplify the system so players didn't have to micromanage downtime to get the "optimal" benefit (or be behind the one player that did). After all, it kinda fails as a system for handling longer stretches of time if every day has to be micromanaged at the expense of play time.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Update v1.0.3
    Mostly small formatting adjustments. Added extra notes into lore skills. Temporarily swapped Bulk in the weapon section with the weapon group category. Still unsure about the exact placement for bulk here (feels a bit awkward in the middle of everything) - so would appreciate any feedback regarding the current weapon section formatting.

    Singularity wrote:
    Charon Onozuka wrote:


    Alternatively, if I tried to make something like that as a stand-alone sheet, I'd probably use the Roll20 NPC entry as inspiration and mix in a bit of my own style from the character sheet with things like simple auto-calculations. It probably wouldn't be as complex as my Character Sheet, but might be easier to enter information if creating a stat block exclusively for an NPC or Monster.

    Either way, it may take a while before I could have it ready, but let me know which you think would be closer to what you are looking for.

    That would be exactly what I'd be hoping for. Thank you for even considering doing this.

    You're welcome! :)

    Honestly, I think it's an interesting idea and can see how it'd be useful, so I don't mind adding it into my planned sheet creations.

    To give a (very) rough estimate on time, I may wait until the GM Mastery guide to start work on this - just so I can mix in any new rules for the NPC/Monster creation process as fluidly as possible. Depending on how long that is, I'll also be giving priority to getting my GM Sheet up and ready before starting work on this. Next few months are going to be a bit hectic for me schedule-wise, so I'm currently unsure how much time I'll be able to spend on these - but I will be making plans to do so and will drop updates here when they're ready/presentable.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Franz Lunzer wrote:

    I thought of something: switch around the placement of the Bulk cell, so it isn't under the ability cells?

    I think if Bulk is moved left between Traits and Group (so directly under the "Damage"-label), it would be more obvious to find the right cell.

    I'll see if I can get time this weekend to play around with arraignment and try to find a better place for bulk. Personally, I like how weapon group neatly fits under the damage-label at the moment, but perhaps swapping it with Bulk may be better. I still want weapon group to remain near damage, since it affects critical specializations and thus is best group with other damage related categories.

    Singularity wrote:
    I mostly would like a tool where I can create the stat blocks that you see in the PF2e Bestiary. Roll20 has an NPC version of their PF2e sheet that works fairly well, but I really love your PC sheet, and would like to be able to fill out NPC/Monster stat blocks with something like it.

    Hmm... if you're looking for a stat block style... in my original PF1 sheet, I actually had a "rough stat block" area in the background tab for the character sheet. It was rather janky and worked best as a rough entry that could be copied to a text doc and edited - but I wonder if creating a new tab on the 2E Character Sheet which did something like this would be the best way to work towards what you're looking for?

    It probably wouldn't be perfect, but it would pull from entries in the character sheet and arrange all the information into a stat-block format. I could potentially add some text entry areas next to it for things that are difficult to pull correctly - though spells & equipment might still pose some issues.

    Alternatively, if I tried to make something like that as a stand-alone sheet, I'd probably use the Roll20 NPC entry as inspiration and mix in a bit of my own style from the character sheet with things like simple auto-calculations. It probably wouldn't be as complex as my Character Sheet, but might be easier to enter information if creating a stat block exclusively for an NPC or Monster.

    Either way, it may take a while before I could have it ready, but let me know which you think would be closer to what you are looking for.

    Update v1.0.2 (from Sunday 9/1/2019)
    After doing a quick test making a character/animal companion - I found/fixed some small errors with damage calculations (propulsive trait, temp ranged vs temp melee dmg, companion ability mod to damage) and the drained condition causing an error when checked. Also made a few formatting adjustments & fixes (hopefully solving a disappearing background issue in the Conditions area). Full details in the changelog.

    Franz Lunzer wrote:

    Bulk - space for Weapons fits the page formatting pretty nice, IMHO.

    But one of my players appearently didn't get how to enter it and overwrote the ability bonus damage calc (grey cell) right above it.

    Thanks for the reply & happy to hear that bulk for weapons seems to be working well. Your player's mistake was probably due to part of the reason I was initially hesitant to switch to a double row format for weapon entries - since it can make things a bit more confusing to read/interpret.

    For the moment, I don't want to add a weapon entry with bulk since players would have to remove the option if they didn't want to buy one to avoid it messing up their current bulk calculation. Hopefully just reminding people about the color coding and giving them time to get used to the formatting will be enough for now - but if not, I'd certainly want to hear if players keep making this mistake so I can try something more invasive to help.

    Singularity wrote:

    I have one major request, though...

    After the GM Mastery Guide comes out would you please consider making one of these for NPCs and Monsters?

    Hmm... One of the things I'm currently looking to recreate/update is my GM Sheet which can automatically pull stats from these character sheets by entering a link (Along with providing rules notes/tables and areas to record campaign notes). As part of that sheet, I was planning to upgrade my NPC recording area from being just a section on the main page to being an independent tab that can fit some more details for easily referencing.

    I wonder if this would be similar enough to what you're looking for? Are you more interested in an area for a GM to record details of NPCs/Monsters to reference in play, or something that helps with the creation of NPC/Monster stats? I'll probably try to include any NPC/Monster creation rules into the GM Sheet where I can, but if it'd be helpful to also have an independent mini-creation sheet to build/record these, then I could look into doing that after having time to review the new rules once they're out.

    Will probably make the resurrection ritual rare in my setting. While it'd still exist - it wouldn't be something reliably found in every campaign even if you put in significant effort.

    Basically, in my setting the original afterlife plane was destroyed and different groups of deities made their own regional afterlife systems out of the fragments they could collect (after disagreeing about the best way to do it). Resurrection & Necromancy are only possible by deliberately exploiting the flaws in this patchwork system compared to the original - which most deities generally discourage. After all, if the system breaks again, no deity will be able to repair it & planar beings like devils/angels will exploit that to siphon off as many souls as they can to their own planes.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The pattern as far as I can tell is:
    -3 spells per deity*
    -Always starts with a 1st level spell
    -Highest spell level seems to be 7th*
    -Common spreads seem to be 1st/2nd/4th or 1st/3rd/5th

    Otherwise, I think they're mostly just thematic spells for the deity which aren't already on the divine spell list.**

    *Nethys is the one exception to most of these, but he is also specifically a god of magic - so I guess it makes sense that he's all about granting more magic and gives each spell level up to 9th.

    **I'd need to double-check lists to be sure, but I think I remember devs mentioning something about not making "useless" spells already on the Cleric's divine list. Which is great for Clerics, but I kinda want to see future archetype(s) that would allow other classes/casters to gain limited deity benefits as a way to make deities more mechanically relevant in the setting. So any archetype that would grant a deity's spells to a non-divine caster might end up a bit lopsided as a result of deliberately excluding divine spells.

    Also: As a fellow homebrewer I want to note that Jan 2020 should be the release of the Gods & Magic book with additional domains and deity rules. So you might want to keep that in mind while starting mechanical work on your deities.

    I think deities all having 4 domains is more for consistency than balance. If you want to have a hierarchy displayed by number of domains in your own system, I'd say to just go for it. I know PF1 did similar with all of the demigods having less domains than full deities, but I don't think we've seen any demigods in PF2 yet.

    For spells, I would note that all deities in the CRB give exactly 3 spells with the first spell being at 1st level (Except for Nethys - who gives a spell of each level up to 9th as a god of magic). This might be more important to try to keep consistent, since they automatically add more options to a cleric's spell list unlike domains (which require feat access to get more). So outside of deliberate outliers (Nethys), it may be a good idea to keep the total spells per deity at three just to try to avoid accidentally making one "better" when it wasn't intentional to do so.

    [And as a side note, that sounds like a fun setting. Good luck with converting it!]

    Update v1.0.1
    Made a few changes as mentioned in my previous post.

    Unsure about the current placement/formatting for weapon bulk and the new Feats & Proficiencies tab layout, so I'd love to hear any feedback on those.

    Also found a few small errors on the sheet that I fixed (enfeebled checking the wrong weapon when applying to weapon damage & some bulk calculation areas).

    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Could be a cool feat for a magus.

    A Magus archetype that could add this to characters sounds like a great way to help them blend magic and swordplay.

    And yeah, I wouldn't consider it sensible for magic spells to be agile by default either. If it doesn't have the agile trait, it doesn't get the benefit.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Thanks for the comments! Also noticed this thread has been moved to Third-Party Products. While I never really thought of it that way, I can see how it makes sense.

    Franz Lunzer wrote:
    I'm not entirely sure if the weapons I entered on the Main tab need to be entered again on the Equipment tab to have them be calculeted for Bulk, but I did. Maybe that can be automated in a way?

    This is probably an oversight of mine. I'll look into adding a bulk entry into the weapon lines this weekend. Originally bulk wasn't there due to space limitations in the Playtest Sheet and it was expected to enter the weapon again in Equipment, but the double row format has increased overall space - so I should be able to squeeze it in with just a bit of reformatting. Looks like I just forgot to do that while worried about all the other useful things I could include now that there was more space to do so.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    1. I think it's a mistake to tie Feat/Features to level by default. I can think of several instances where some boxes would be unused unless the user redoes the level boxes. Level should be entered by the user, in my opinion.

    While I understand your point - it is an easy thing to alter for players using it and keeping it provides a rough guideline for many characters + keeps similarities with the official sheet. So I might look into changing it if others express similar concerns, but for now I'll probably leave it.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    2. There's no way to use rolled Ability Scores instead of the boost system. I prefer the boost system, but still.

    Hmmm... That could easily be entered by overriding the ability score in the table at top (which just pulls the final number of the generation table) - but I'll have to think about the best way to clarify that to players without some people accidentally removing the connection to the generation table when they don't intend to. For now, I'll probably add a comment about that in the note above the table - but I'm certainly open to suggestions about better ways to display this.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    3. The spellcasting tab could use some work. As far as I know, only spontaneous spellcasters need "Spells Known," and even then, Spells Known=Spell Slots. And not sure if the preparation works well, since a single spell can be prepared many times in many spell levels. Maybe there should also be a place to add where the spell comes from, to note if it's a class spell that would benefit from a higher proficiency.

    Will make a note to look into / think about the preparation/heightening format some more. While I have a column for heightening - I'm not sure if there is a good way to expand that for many levels without impacting space meant for other spell details.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    4. I can see a Wizard or Alchemist needing extra room for languages.

    For this, I will happily note that the languages cell is formatted for text-wrapping by default. So if you have more languages than would normally fit, the row height will automatically extend to add another line and make more room.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:

    2. Probably enough room for weapon profs if one adds their class weapons as "Class" and add a note for what weapons the class has.

    3. Lots of bonus feat slots. Still worry there not being enough for a Rogue that also gets a lot of bonuses feats.

    Looking at my current spacing on that page, extending these categories to give them a few more lines would be trivial to do. If you're worried about not having enough space there, I'll add some more in when I work on things this weekend.

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    4. The Background tab looks FANTASTIC!

    Many thanks for this :)

    To be honest, the Background tab was actually one of my favorites when working on this version of the sheet. I added a lot to it since the Playtest ended and really like how it came out. I ended up getting an unexpected reminder to add more room for additional deities when I saw a comment about how someone always disliked how D&D/Pathfinder didn't really have rules for polytheistic belief despite having numerous deities. I also stole/modified the tactics sections from a level planner tab in the first PF1 sheet I made (since a player had brought up wanting a level planner during the Playtest, but I never got the time to add it in before the Playtest ended). So overall, I'm really hopeful that the current version of the Background (+Planner) tabs will be something that players will enjoy and can easily record a large amount of details/reminders for their characters.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    mrspaghetti wrote:

    Essentially, the way the rules for crafting are written, it is NEVER worthwhile to craft an item you can buy instead. You make ZERO income for the 4 mandatory days before your skill check, and after that you only reduce the price of the item by the same amount you would have gotten by Earning Income. So Crafting nets you 4 days less value in every scenario.

    That is really stupid. I was thinking of making some weapons for myself just for fun and flavor, but instead I think I'll just use Crafting to Earn Income and buy what I want, then role-play that I 'made' those items.

    Haven't fully gone through everything related to crafting yet - but doesn't this argument rely on the assumption that you always have access to at-level work during downtime? After all, the reduction in price for crafting is based on your level instead of the task level. On the other hand, work you can find earns money based on the task level, which is influenced by a settlement level that seems to cap out at 10 for a metropolis or capital city. Past level 10, you either need to be be at, "the largest cities in the world or another plane," to easily get earned income at an 11+ task level.

    So it seems like crafting may not necessarily be the 'optimal income' method at lower levels when plenty of people can make the same things and other jobs are just as profitable. But sometime past level 10 you'll almost always start saving more money by continued crafting instead of picking up a (lower level) job.

    Some number crunching may be needed to determine the exact point crafting profit outdoes the loss of income from the first 4 days, but you'll also have to take into account that the GM can require you to spend, "1 day or more of downtime looking for leads on new jobs." Not to mention that the initial jobs found may not be at the highest level available in the settlement, which might require spending more downtime on using Diplomacy to Gather Information. Crafting by contrast seems like it has a very consistent 4 day period before you start making profit, where earned income has a 1-? day period before getting the job required to start making profit.

    Overall, I wouldn't consider Crafting to be in a bad place for making money. It can be used to earn income in the normal way during downtime AND potentially craft items above the level of a settlement's available jobs to save more money compared to working+buying from someone else. If it takes more than 4 days to find a high enough level job (which gets increasingly difficult or even impossible as the party's level goes up compared to nearby settlements), then Crafting seems like it could frequently be a superior option for total cost savings even at levels before 10.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LordVanya wrote:
    I need Androids and Drow for my group to even consider switching to 2e.

    Rather than being a separate ancestry - I'm kinda hoping that Drow become a heritage for elves with their own unique ancestry feats.

    Also, considering how popular Kitsune & Tengu seem to be - I'd love to see a playable Oni race to complete representation of the Nihon San Dai Aku Yōkai [The Three Great Evil Youkai of Japan, consisting of Tamamo-no-Mae (Kitsune), Emperor Sutoku (Tengu), and Shuten-douji (Oni)].

    Charon Onozuka wrote:
    I eventually got frustrated enough to just design my own sheet in google sheets that I could use and share with my group/others (& later designed a GM sheet that could pull specific info from multiple player sheets for quick reference).

    Realized I should probably plug my updated Character Sheet for PF2.

    While I've fully been tempted by the allure of digital character sheets to the point of making my own, my origins in printing out sheets probably had an influence in what I make. I've kept my sheets around letter-sized for possible printing (in addition to smaller screens) and made an effort to have many tabs formatted so they naturally break at where printed pages would for easy viewing (though this admittedly doesn't work for on all tabs or if certain textboxes overflow before printing).

    Draco18s wrote:
    R0b0tBadgr wrote:

    I *require* my players to use pencil and paper, for two reasons:

    1. Creating a character for the first time, and having to level it up manually means you actually had to go look up the ability and write it down, and not just check a box. More than once I've had players not know what they can do because they had a tool put everything together automagically.

    My excel sheet works like this, but its even better, as I can link cells together with formulas so I can later look at a number and go "+15? That seems off somehow, lets see, 4 from attribute, 2 from skill boosts, 5 from level, oh! the last +2 is from a class ability! that's right."

    With a paper sheet I have to go back and look up all those feats, class abilities, items, and other things to find the +1 that was baked into my base values when the GM doesn't trust what I put down six weeks ago. And sure, sometimes it turns out that I plugged in a temporary value (say, a 10 min/lv buff) that had definitely worn off, but the point is that the sheet can keep a permanent record of where every bonus is coming from.

    Similar here. With both paper & simple pdf sheets I've always had issues with players accidentally stacking non-stackable bonuses, having no idea where an extra bonus is coming from, or simply never doing a thorough reading of the rules and doing something really weird (because lets face it, not everyone is reading the CRB cover to cover). I've found digital sheets to be helpful both because they can help guide the player in how certain aspects are calculated & make it far easier for a sheet to be shared with the GM, making it quicker for them to double-check and figure out what's going on.

    As for players forgetting what abilities they have due to a sheet doing the work for them. I can't say I've really seen that at my tables considering most of my players are always looking forward to what new things they can pull off next level and probably remember their abilities better as a result.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    For races that were previously in PF1, I'd love to see Changelings (built in story-hook), Kitsune (major eastern mythological race), Kobolds (love the small dragon-ish guys), and Tieflings.

    However, I'd also love to see more focus on some monstrous races that were hard to do in PF1 due to some of the size rules - exploring tiny races like a Pixie/Sprite or a large sized race like Centaurs or Minotaurs. In particular, I'd love to see a Lamia (snake) race.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    When I first got into Pathfinder (& TRPGs in general), one of my group members gave me a fillable pdf which I printed out and used for games. I'd enter some permanent things before printing, and then use pencil for things like items or spell preparations which could frequently change during gameplay.

    After graduating college, my group continued to play together online through Roll20 and I switched to being purely digital with my sheets. After some annoyances with having to resend pdfs after leveling, an online site losing the data for many of my sheets, and other sheets being too wide for my (old) laptop screen to easily display/use (among other issues) - I eventually got frustrated enough to just design my own sheet in google sheets that I could use and share with my group/others (& later designed a GM sheet that could pull specific info from multiple player sheets for quick reference).

    So while I started more towards the pen & paper side - things like automatically being able to calculate the effects of multiple conditions that just got applied in combat without spending 20 minutes going through the rulebook and questioning what does/does not stack is too useful for me to ever go back to the non-digital method.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Here's a link to my Forum Post and a link to my character sheet.

    GM Sheet will probably take longer to get up (more work + getting even busier irl starting in September), but I'll post a link to that as well once I get it up so that can be added into my entry.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    Finally finished with updating and upgrading my surprisingly popular Playtest Character Sheet to be fully ready for PF2 Characters and the final rules. Thank you to everyone who supported my previous sheet and apologies for taking longer than expected to finish this one.

    Sheet can be viewed here: gIxh0sMs/edit?usp=sharing
    Please do not request to edit the sheet, as it is a template meant for everyone to use. Instead, you can save a copy of the sheet to edit by clicking the link just below the Pathfinder logo on the upper right of the main tab. Alternatively, you can make a copy by clicking here.

    Sheet Features:

    Ability Scores: Completely moved to the Feats & Proficiencies tab, with an easy checkbox table to calculate your ability scores step-by-step. Includes conditional formatting to warn you when applying too many boosts at any one stage, room to apply boosts/flaws from the Voluntary Flaws optional rule, ability to properly handle apex items, and a miscellaneous row for any boosts gained outside of the normal rules.

    Automatic Calculations: Like any good google sheet, many basic calculations for things like AC, saves, skills, etc. are all done for you. Any calculation that uses an ability score also includes a dropdown box to change which ability score is used in the calculation, allowing the sheet to easily adapt to any feats, class features, or house rules which change what ability score would normally apply.

    Background: An expanded tab records a wealth of background information for your character. Includes room for artwork, polytheistic deity worship, relationships, frequently used tactics, campaign session notes, and more!

    Companion Creatures: A tab is included to record an animal companion or familiar. By selecting either "Animal Companion" or "Familiar" from the drop down list near the top of the tab, all relevant modifiers (HP, AC, Saves, Skills, Perception, etc.) on the tab will adjust to the rules for that type of companion creature. Also has a mini equipment section to record any items your companion is carrying.

    Conditions: Most of the conditions from the rulebook are included with a toggleable checkbox, a place to put the condition's value if applicable, and a box to measure the rounds remaining. Any stat changes of the condition are then automatically applied to the relevant categories, while being sure to only apply the highest value from non-stacking status penalties and circumstantial penalties. Conditions which also give other conditions as part of their effects will automatically apply those sub-conditions without needing to check the sub-condition's box.

    Display: The entire sheet is done in a letter-sized format to make it easier to display on smaller screens without needing side-scrolling. The sheet can also be printed easily, though not all tabs will have clean breaks.

    Equipment: Multiple categories for equipment to be placed with a total bulk calculation that automatically multiplies the entered bulk by the quantity of that item held (and assuming said quantity is 1 if nothing is entered). Bulk calculation also includes the bulk of currency carried and automatically applies the encumbered condition to relevant areas when reached.

    Formulas: An entire tab is dedicated to tracking all crafting formulas you know, with reference tables for income earned, formula prices, and standard DCs. There is also room to track progress during crafting – such as days remaining, price remaining, and how large of a batch you are currently crafting.

    Planner: An extra tab is dedicated to tracking future plans you might have for your character. Includes areas to record options you want to select during level up, items you want to purchase, and other plans for your character and/or campaign.

    Proficiencies: Upgraded from the Playtest sheet, Armor and Weapon Proficiencies can be checked once and then will be automatically pulled from their tab to calculate bonuses. There is room to enter additional types of proficiencies which will then be displayed in the appropriate drop down boxes under the individual armor and weapon entries.

    Rules Reference: Notes throughout the sheet have been completely updated to display relevant rules text taken from the 2E Core Rulebook. Other notes inform how the background calculations of the sheet work and give suggestions on how to use the sheet. For example, hovering over any of the Conditions will display their full rule text.

    Temporary and Miscellaneous Bonuses: Throughout the sheet are areas to enter extra bonuses and penalties without needing to worry about accidentally altering the underlying formulas.


    Feedback: If you enjoy the sheet, have suggestions on how it could be improved, or find any errors, then be sure to comment! I love feedback and will make updates whenever I can to constantly improve this sheet. In particular, I am interested to know how people react to the new dual-row weapon section and how useful people find the background and planner areas when making a character.

    Finally, I want to give a special shout-out to Draco18s for showing me how generating ability scores could be done in a table format, Captain Morgan for offering early rules details and sharing one of their player’s edits of my previous playtest sheet, and Doodpants for a post on unicode symbols that could be used to represent 2E action, reaction, and free action symbols.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Happy to see a thread like this! [Even if only to steal ideas/inspiration from seeing how others work on their sheets.]

    For my sheet, I'm currently estimating an initial release this weekend (maybe saving Companion Creatures & Formula tabs for later update depending on how much time I get to work on it, been busy recently). I'll make a thread and post new links here once I've got it in a presentable state. Note that my new sheet will be a different link from the Playtest one.

    Also, if I could make a suggestion? The current sheet is extremely wide to the point it doesn't even fit on my screen, and it would be easier to read/use if it was narrower. I'd personally resize many of the columns to be just enough for the text they contain (Design, Fillable, & Status all have consistent entry lengths and unused space), make the Name column have text wrapping so it can be less wide while still displaying all info with no cut-off, and either replacing the URLs with text that just says "Link" while being clickable with a hyperlink or making the columns have text wrapping set to "clip" instead of the default "overflow" and making the columns shorter that way.

    EDIT: Also, once my GM Sheet is finished (probably not for a while), mind if I get that linked into the "Notes" area?

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I know I'm the minority on this issue, but I've generally disliked wands primarily being multi-use scrolls and still dislike it in PF2. Too much thematic overlap and generally just makes them better & more expensive scrolls.

    As for the specialty wands, I dislike all of the ones which are "cast spell X, but better." The ones which can improve a type of spell are okay - but I kinda wish they were more like the old metamagic rods in that regard and modified spells of a certain type you casted rather than being limited to the single spell it was crafted with.

    Also, off-topic since I mention the rods, but I hate the magical rods I saw while glancing at some of the items in 2E (Rod of Negation & Rod of Wonder). They recharge after 2d6 or 1d4 hours, which is possibly the worst form of tedious tracking for an individual magic item.

    Very happy to hear about being able to playtest a Witch! (fav class)

    A bit surprised to hear about Swashbucklers though. I knew Oracle was too popular to skip & figured that Investigators where thematic enough to retool, but always felt that Swashbucklers were a bit lacking as a class. It'll be interesting to see what's done with them.

    Somewhat surprised that there was no mention of Magus - but I'm kinda hoping they'll be somewhere in the 60 archetypes.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    cartmanbeck wrote:
    So while I appreciate fillable PDF sheets, has anyone put together a character sheet in Google Sheets yet that uses dropdowns for class names and things like that?
    Knight of Whispers wrote:


    I used this one: wItMlKQ8/edit#gid=700969085

    to make a few Playtest characters. The original creator might make an updated version for PF2e, but it could be a while.

    In the meantime, I'm making my own sheet, although it's likely not going to be *nearly* as good. Although, one thing I want to do differently than most others is the spell sheet. I'm not a fan of how it is now. Makes showing prepared spells a little difficult. People making the PDF sheets seem to think the Prep note should be a check box like in 5e. It'd be much better as a text box to show amount prepared.

    I'll be starting to fully work on my Google Sheet Character Sheet this weekend and am hoping to release version 1 within the next 1-2 weeks or so at worst (darn life & work getting in the way). Afterward, I'll be working on an updated GM sheet that can auto-pull info from multiple Char Sheets along with being a sort of digital GM Screen and note/tracking aid. (Using Playtest versions as a base for both)


    Also, have to say that I love seeing all the people providing variations of character sheets that others can use already. Even if I won't be using them personally - I hope they help others who prefer a different style and love looking at them to think about how to improve formatting on my own sheets. (Such as how the new official sheets put wounded & dying tracking right next to HP, which seems so stupidly convenient that I'm a bit ashamed to have never thought of it while running the playtest.)

    Knight of Whispers wrote:
    EDIT: Don't ya just love finding mistakes on something right after releasing it?

    Every. Single. Time. I post or release anything... xD

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Darth Game Master wrote:
    A Google Sheets version would be great if you have the time. No pressure though.

    If you're needing a Google Sheets Character sheet, I'll be working on one & hoping to get done within a week or two (followed by a GM sheet sometime afterward). Will make a thread once I've got version 1 ready to share & take feedback for improvement.

    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).

    5 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:







    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).

    1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>