ClanPsi's page

Paizo updating the rules is fantastic news. Here are some things my group and I agree desperately need to change. We have experimented with all of them and there have been zero balance issues whatsoever. I've ordered them in order of importance.

1) Item DCs. All items which have a DC need to be changed to scale based on the Standard DC table. It's ridiculous that items are only useful for 1-2 levels. This would make items useful for much longer. This would also lead to poisons being useful for everyone, not just Toxicologists, but of course a Toxicologist's poisons will have higher DCs. I still think the subclass would need more added in order to make it a worthwhile option, though.

2) Talismans. They should be changed to 1/day. As they are, they are *terrible* value.

3) Animal Companions. While we like how they work in general, the maximum 2 actions per round is severely limiting and leads to some really bizarre interactions. The extra feat to give 3 actions for 2 is not a sufficient solution due to it requiring a certain character level, so it should honestly just be removed entirely. Any companion rider should be able to give one action to their companion mount at a 1:1 ratio, regardless of how many actions that companion or mount has used that turn. The 1:2 ability should be a special ability only usable once per round. This solves the movement problem of spending an entire turn moving on a mount. As written currently, you waste an action every round you're mounted on a companion because they're only allowed to move twice.

4) Cackle. A witch's cackle should be a flourish cantrip, not a focus spell.

It may have something to do with the fact that now the Hasbro CEO is former Microsoft, the president of Wizards of the Coast is former Microsoft and Amazon, and the VP now in charge of D&D is former Microsoft 365.

They're probably still with Micro$oft, considering this is pretty much exactly what M$ is trying to do with video games: take over and create a monopoly.

I'd probably just keep it simple and make it the higher of class or spell DC

IMO, all these Basic Alchemy Benefits classes should be errataed anyways because as is, the dedication feats are dead feats for actual alchemists, who would definately get nice flavor expansion with them, but that's the subject of it's own thread

Yeah, very true point. Paizo definitely dropped the ball with Alchemy in PF2e. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to an Ultimate Alchemy full errata book to fix all of the issues.

Please let one of them be a Kineticist. Kineticist and Arcanist would be really nice.

And for the love of Aroden, DON'T make a gunslinger. Guns in fantasy games are super lame.

Can we get alternate casting rules for all casters, please? Vancian magic blows.

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.
How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

Seriously, just make an errata page on your website and update it every week. There's absolutely no good reason to make us wait so long. It's 2019, not 1989.

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

Except for, you know, the entire prepared casting system. It's straight out of the year 2000.

p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Counting diagonally:
5+10+5+10+...

5 feet
15 feet (exception)
20 feet
30 feet

On p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Speaking of which, why is there no thread for posting mistakes for future erratas? Paizo, please add one.

That's why I'm wondering if it's a printing error. It seems like the bit about resting should have been added a lot earlier and not at level 19.

The ability lets a Ranger sleep in light or medium armour without being fatigued the next day. That's cool. Why is this ability level 19? The campaign is ending in two sessions by the time you get it. The Ranger should get this ability at level 1.

Arcanist-style spellcasting, exclusive NPC classes for all playable ancestries...

That's what I can think up as of now.

YES! Prepared spellcasters should have been this from the start. All spells should be spontaneously heightenable, too.

Of course, this would require Sorcerers to get more unique abilities, which I'm all for.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems from the wording of the DM that you still have to prepare each individual casting of a spell, and that you have to decide at the beginning of the day whether or not you want to prepare a spell at a higher spell level.
Again, I hope I'm wrong, but if this is the case... that is SO BAD!!! >_<

Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

... However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

That's actually a really good idea! I just checked the Beastiary and it gives the level of the monster in the description. For example, Banshee are Uncommon Monster 13, so it's easy enough to just minus 13 from everything. Nice!

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I love the action system, and class feats are a neat idea, but I capital-h HATE how everything in the game scales with level. It's the most boring, uninspired design I've ever seen. As others here have mentioned, I also hate feat taxes. Why feats are pretty much the only thing in the game which don't scale with level is beyond my understanding.

I REALLY like the Kineticist suggestions. I always felt like Kineticists were the most Sorcerer-like class in PF1. Making them a base class in PF2 would be SO AWESOME!!!

PF Playtest hero points are dumb. There's really no good reason to ever use them for anything other than stablising before death.

I really like how Eberron implemented them, though, by essentially being what are now Fighter Superiority Dice. Give an extra +1d6 to any d20 roll.

Changing to 5e-style casting would solve so many issues I have with magic in the playtest. That is, Arcanist-style preparation and casting as well as spontaneous spell heightening.

This would also necessitate a change in Sorcerers, which I am all for. As it stands now Sorcerers are not unique enough. Bloodlines with specific spell lists are a step in the right direction, but they need more. 5e gave them Metamagic; doing something similar would be nice.

One thing the magic survey never touched on was Heightening. The way it's done right now is awful. There's no good reason why it should be limited as it is now. Just let all casters spontaneously heighten their spells and magic will become a lot more fun and interesting.

I'd also like to see prepare-per-cast disappear. Just steal 5e's magic system. It's super clean and works perfectly.

Flanking rules as written are, as in D&D 3e and PF1, kind of dumb because the "flank" is the left or right, not behind. 5e, on the other hand, completely got rid of it, which I don't really like either.

Currently the rules read:
"A line drawn between the center of your space to the center of your ally’s space must pass through either opposite sides or opposite corners of the enemy’s space."

Suggestion - Change the rules to the following:

"A line drawn between the center of your space to the center of your ally's space passes through your opponent's space."

Then you can flank from the side, which is what flanking is. There's no logical reason why flanking should require two people to be on opposite sides. It is the most advantageous position to be in, yes, but it isn't necessary to gain a combat advantage against an opponent.

I must admit, it never occurred to me to just use Treat Wounds over and over again. My group was treating it like a Short Rest in 5e where you only do it once between encounters if you really need to. Personally I like that idea better than using Treat Wounds ten times in a row. Just make it super good and only allow it to me used once or twice a day. Also, make sleeping better.

Sleeping gives Con Mod x Level healing. Treat Wounds does the same with a tiny chance of more on a critical success.
What?! Why is it so awful? It's on average 10% of your max hit points, or in other words half of one encounter. If a player doesn't boost Con then it's even less than that. You might as well not get any healing at all since it's almost completely useless.

Am I missing something important here? Why are the shoehorning everyone into boosting Con as high as they can? What's wrong with 5e's hit die system, and why doesn't Paizo adopt/adapt things that are proven to work well (I'm looking at you, Vancian spellcasting *glare*)? o_O

The changed it from a Fort save based on what knocked you out to a flat death saving throw. Personally I don't like this change at all. It's exactly the same as 5e now, and I do not like 5e dying rules. It's just as easy to die from a dragon's breath weapon as it is to die from a level 0 goblin scratching your toe. I much preferred the 1.3 rules.

Suggestion: If people are having trouble calculating a monster's DC, why not just put it in the monster's stat line? Then you wouldn't have to write it under each individual monster ability either. It'd make it much simpler while still being unique and interesting.

It seems a lot of people here are only comparing Raise Shield to Strike, as if Strike is the only other option in combat. With all of the extra options classes in the playtest get, surely there is more to do than just Strike, and having these abilities I mentioned taking actions to prepare for significantly limits the number of cool actions you can take in combat.

@Fuzzypaws Hahaha, I know, right? It's ridiculous.

I really like how blocking with a shield is a reaction that grands DR, but can dent the shield. That's a fantastic option for combat. I also like how Half-Orcs can use their reaction to get a +1 bonus to spell saves. More options are almost never a bad thing, and both of these are great additions to the game.

What I don't like, however, is having to spend an action to prepare for something that might not even happen. It's really boring and uninspired design, they don't make any sense (Why would someone be fighting with a shield but not be using it? Why would an Orc be more susceptible to magic if he isn't squinting his eyes or whatever the f*ck the preparation action implies they do?) and their benefits don't warrant an entire action in my opinion. My suggestion: Get rid of the preparation actions completely.

For shields, give the AC bonus all the time and keep the reaction to raise it for DR.
For Half-Orcs, change Superstition to a reaction (similar to their new Level 9 Ancestry feat) and give them something more interesting at level 9.
Also, for Dwarves, change Ancient Blooded to be less like Superstition.

I liked the idea of 2m squares because it meant diagonals could be 3m and gosh that'd make the math a bit easier.

Temperatures should just be described in bands rather than temperatures.

I think then you can do a definition in both temperatures once in the book and in adventures you just refer to the temperature band where it's relevant to character penalties or bonuses.

That's a good idea for temperature! They could even combine your idea with Themetricsystem's Sol idea and have something like:

+3 Sols = Death from exposure in ?? minutes / ?? rounds.
+2 Sols = Stifling. Access to water and shade a necessity. Severe negatives to something game-related.
+1 Sol = Uncomfortably hot. Minor negatives to something game-related, probably endurance
0 Sols = Comfortable.
-1 Sol = Uncomfortably cold. Minor negatives to something game-related, probably endurance.
-2 Sols = Freezing. Need winter clothing and shelter. Severe negatives to something game-related.
-3 Sols = Death from exposure in ?? minutes / ?? rounds.

Then players know exactly what happens to characters in extreme weather, and racial abilities for the Arctic Elf (I personally think it should be Mountain Dwarf) and Desert Dwarf (I personally think it should be Desert or Aquatic Elf) could have easier-to-understand descriptions, such as: "Ignore extreme weather penalties of -1 and -2 Sols."

I, like millions of other players from around the world, come from a country where the Metric system is used for measurements. I don't understand Imperial. I suggest putting two values on everything in the game. Keep Imperial if you must, but adding in the exact number is squares afterwards in parenthesis would be absolutely fantastic. Thus, 30ft movement would be: 30ft (6 squares)

As for Fahrenheit, it is the most ridiculous measuring system ever created and doesn't belong in modern society. Please switch everything to Celsius. If you absolutely have to keep it (ugh...), then do something similar to what I suggest above and use parenthesis. It would look as such:
...
Just give me a second. Gotta pull out my calculator because Fahrenheit is so stupid...
-80F (-62C)
140F (60C)

Just because a[n] ancestry does something doesn't mean they have to be good at it.

That's a really strange thing to say, since it's pretty much why stat boosts and ancestry feats exist in the first place. They're a mechanical representation of what an ancestry is fundamentally good at.

I agree. I wish Half-Elf was part of Elf with Human feat options, and Half-Orc was part of Orc (made into a new playable race) with Human feat options. That would free up Humans to have Aasimar and Tiefling as choices.

I also really want to see Kobolds as a base playable race with Goblin stats and Goblins re-worked to make more logical sense (+2 Cha? What?!). It would be really unique because no game has ever done that before.

I actually just came to the forums to suggest changing Goblin stats to Kobold. It's really nice to see that quite a few people already agree with me.

Goblins aren't charismatic, they're crafty. Thus, Goblins should be +Int.

Kobolds are Sorcerers, so they should be +Cha.

I definitely prefer the idea of having Half-Elves linked to Elves, and Half-Orcs linked to Orcs.

I'd also like to see the Human sub-species feat options replaced with Aasimar and Tiefling.

I'd personally much rather they fix DCs than add in flavourless magic items. Remember, one of the reasons they're making PF2 in the first place is to build a system that pretty much does away with generic bonuses altogether.

I also have a huge problem with how monsters were created better in every way than the PCs. It's pretty f*cked up when a mook Goblin scavenger has a higher to hit bonus than a max-stat heroic Fighter. The entire Monster Manual needs a complete overhaul to be more in-line with actual game mechanics.

Penn: Yeah, but that only solves the problem specifically for Goblins taking that specific racial feat. Everyone else is screwed.

Puzzypaws: Adding tricks won't solve the problem I mentioned (though tricks in general would be a neat addition!), since Cavaliers have to choose a companion with the "Mount" keyword already attached to the animal. I still stand by my opinion that "Mount" just needs to be deleted completely.

Yeah, that's the problem I explained. They're considered normal mounts, but they don't have the "Mount" special rule, so they can't be taken as mounts (rules as written) by a Cavalier.
Thus, either "Mount" should be added to Wolf (which, for balance reasons, would result in all Animal Companions also gaining the "Mount" keyword), or the "Mount" keyword needs to be removed from the game completely.
Also, because of this needed change, the "Work Together" ability needs to be re-worked as well. Personally I also don't think this ability should be needlessly limited. It should work regardless of who is riding it and with no "Mount" keyword tax.
And while we're on the subject, I'd personally reduce the speed of the raptor. 50ft is crazy fast. 40ft at most, but I'd keep horses as the fastest mounts. 35ft seems reasonable, or 40ft with horses at 45.

Special note to Paizo devs: You REALLY need to stop limiting your game. You should be empowering players to make bad-ass character concepts, not stifling their creativity and shoe-horning them into boring stereotypes.

I get that Paizo is trying to make Horses as unique as other animal companions, but why are they the only mount? A quick look at pretty much any other fantasy game or movie shows characters riding a huge variety of animals. D&D ffs has Halflings riding dogs and raptors. So why is Pathfinder 2, a system which is supposed to give far more options than others, so limited?

Suggestion: Either get rid of the "Mount" keyword, or don't limit abilities such as Cavalier Dedication to only companions with "Mount." Then a Halfing Cavalier can ride a dog (or wolf, I guess... -_-) like an Outrider or a raptor like a Talenta Nomad as they're supposed to be able to.

"...then you might as well remove +lvl from both sides of the equation."

That's exactly my opinion, too. Everything in the game scaling together is stupid. It just makes more math for absolutely no reason.

1) Heightening Spells. Casters are already limited by their spells per day. There's no reason why heightening should be so limited, especially to Sorcerers and Bards. Any caster should be able to heighten whatever spell they want to.
2) Everything Scaling With Level. Attack bonus I can kind of understand, but AC? Skills, even those you're untrained in? It's really stupid that the difference between untrained and legendary is 5 at level 20, and that the biggest possible gap between AC of the PCs is 4. If everything in the game scales it would be better if nothing scaled at all.
3) Yo-Yo Death Rules. The rules right now are awful. I ran the first playtest module and the PCs went down about 20 times throughout the dungeon. Sometimes they were healed up, but most of the time they just stabilised themselves and got up, only to fall right back down again because they were at 1hp. As a DM I don't want to stab a PC who's on the ground, but it's the only logical step after an enemy sees a PC get right back up again.
4) Enemy Power. It's so out of whack with how the system is built, specifically with bonuses to attack. Why does a CR 0 mook Goblin have a +6 to hit when a level 1 super elite hero Goblin PC can only muster a maximum +5? F*cking clown shoes.
5) The 15-Minute Adventuring Day. As so many have mentioned here, why is there no rest mechanic besides sleeping for the night? The adventure I mentioned above took my PCs (ironically enough) almost exactly 15 minutes of in-game time to complete. What are they supposed to do when they run out of resources? Rest for 23.75 hours? That's beyond ridiculous.
6) TAC and Spell Attack Rolls. This relates to #2. TAC is on average 2-3 lower than AC to make it easier for spells to hit because casters use non-main-stats to attack with spells. The actual to-hit percentages are exactly the same, though (For example, a level 1 Fighter with STR 18 attacking AC 15 with a +5 to hit is a 50% hit chance. A level 1 Wizard with DEX 14 casting Ray of Frost against TAC 13 with a +3 to hit is still a 50% hit chance). Which makes me wonder WTF the point is of TAC even existing in the first place. Just have AC and make all spell attacks use the caster's main stat to attack.

Does anyone agree or disagree with my gripes? What are yours?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Why do we not want out of combat healing to be mundane exactly? Because I want that. I'd much rather have conventional first aid fill this role than rituals.

I personally like the idea of the "Healing Ritual" being a combination of multiple things, not just "We cast some magic and everyone regains Xd8 + X HP."

One person casts the ritual, which has a base effect based on the ritual type (Arcane, Divine, Primal, Occult), but other characters can help out, each in a way that ensures that the group is save, and each with additional beneficial effects. Medicine, for example, would bandage wounds and provide additional healing to the final total if successful. Stealth would help to reduce the chance of the group being disrupted while the ritual is being performed. Nature would be utilizing nearby flora/fauna/terrain to help bolster your allies, perhaps removing conditions or, again, restoring additional hit points. You could even keep those "Out of Combat" healing feats for Medicine and Nature, but have them allow you to start a Healing Ritual with those skills as a base.

I want every character involved, with everyone finding ways in-game, and mechanically, to help out during this time. It makes resting an engaging experience for everyone involved, and helps foster the idea of teamwork instead of just having the one healy guy do all the work. You could EVEN go so far as to have CLASSES also have unique mechanics that interact with a Healing ritual (a bard playing music to soothe the party would be a classic example, though that could also just be covered by the Perform skill), but that's a whole other subject.

THIS IS AWESOME!

Yeah, it really did. And Paizo learned nothing from it. :(

There's an error in the update. They said to change the Barbarian's Dragon Transformation to:

“At 18th level, your fly Speed is accelerated 20, your
damage bonus increases to +12, your breath weapon DC
increases to 30, and you gain a +14 conditional bonus to
breath weapon damage.”

But that's what it was to begin with. Presumably what is should be is:

"Your battle form is Huge, your fly Speed is
accelerated 20, your attacks have 10-foot reach (15 if they
previously had 10), your
damage bonus increases to +12, your breath weapon DC
increases to 30, and you gain a +14 conditional bonus to
breath weapon damage."

I couldn't disagree more. I have played a lot of 5e over the past couple of years and being able to spontaneously heighten any spell you know didn't create any amount of imbalance at all (which is interesting, since heightening in 5e is also more powerful than what I've seen in PF2. Charm, for example, gets multiple targets every other level instead of only as an 8th level spell), and it was a LOT more fun to play. Having them as separate spells is bloated and unnecessary.

As for what you said about choices made at early levels, you can change spells whenever you level up so that doesn't matter.

Here's a question: Can anyone give a decent reason as to why heightening spells is so limited? Here are two really WTF choices:

1) Sorcerers need to re-learn a spell as a heightened version in order to cast it as a heightened spell.
2) Spontaneous Heighten isn't spontaneous at all. They need to be prepared at the beginning of the day.

If casters are already limited by spells per day, why even bother having a limit on heightened spells? If someone would rather cast a heightened fireball than greater teleport, why should they not be able to? It seems extremely reasonable to me to presume that if a caster knows how to put more into spells like Magic Missile for more missiles (adding in more components), then surely they also know how to put ever-so-slightly-more in (cast as a level 2 spell) in order to get one more.

I for one am house ruling these stupid limitations out of my games, but can anyone understand why they exist at all?

Can anyone give a decent reason as to why this is so limited? Here are two really WTF choices:

1) Sorcerers need to re-learn a spell as a heightened version in order to cast it as a heightened spell.
2) Spontaneous Heighten isn't spontaneous at all. They need to be prepared at the beginning of the day.

If casters are already limited by spells per day, why even bother having a limit on heightened spells? If someone would rather cast a heightened fireball than greater teleport, why should they not be able to? It seems extremely reasonable to me to presume that if a caster knows how to put more into spells like Magic Missile for more missiles (adding in more components), then surely they also know how to put ever-so-slightly-more in (cast as a level 2 spell) in order to get one more.

I for one am house ruling these stupid limitations out of my games, but can anyone understand why they exist at all?